A I remember.
Q Now, I have here a text of that speech. (Document handed to witness) Now, if you will turn to the top of Page 2 at the beginning of the second paragraph I want to read a portion of that second paragraph and then ask you one question based on it. You say in the course of that speech on the 29 of August 1942: "We remember the opinion that was held in the Party about us lawyers during the first years after the assumption of power and now we realize the great change which has occurred and that this change occurred is due solely to your work here in Hamburg, especially the close relationship between the Hamburg party leadership and our local justice administration was solely the result of your untiring efforts. Anyone who had the opportunity to hear from representatives of other Gaus and knows the situation there also knows how to appreciate what you have done through your political work here."
Now, would you say that that summarizes fairly well your feeling about the extent to which Dr. Rothenberger worked for cooperation between the Administration of Justice at Hamburg and the Party there?
A I understood that on Page 2 the first paragraph or, rather, the first two sentences of that paragraph we read, that, according to the meaning, is what I said and what I meant.
Q All right. You do not have any other comments to make on that? It is substantially correct and still represents your feeling as you look back on it and recall it?
A Yes. If I may refer to it once more I would say that by these words I intended to express the same that I have said before, that is to say, that Dr. Rothenberger succeeded to overcome the difficult conditions which existed in the beginning, in 1939, between the administration of Justice and the Party by the fact that -
THE PRESIDENT: You are merely repeating what you have already testified to. You needn't repeat it.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
BY MR. KING:
Q When did I understand you to say that the Preview and the Review system was established in Hamburg?
A That occurred after the well-known Fuehrer speech. If I am told now that that speech was made in April, 1942, then it must have been at the end of April or in the month of May that was established.
Q Yes. I think I also understood you to say that you had never heard of an instance in which a judge in Hamburg was criticized for being too lenient in his decisions. Is that right?
A Yes; I never heard that.
Q I have before me a report which is dated the 30th of April 1941. I will show it to you. I will say, incidentally, it is a copy made from the original. (Document handed to witness). This report was requested, as you can see, by Dr. Rothenberger. It was prepared by a prosecutor of the District Court and the request called for a summary of the cases in various Hamburg courts in which the judges had given sentences that were not as severe as requested by the prosecution. Now then, on the tenth of July, 1941, you had a conference with Dr. Rothenberger and one other judge or prosecutor, Do you recall that conference?
A No.
Q Well, turn to the last page of that report, please. That looks like your name there, doesn't it?
A Yes, that is my name.
Q But you don't recall what was discussed at that conference, why Rothenberger called for that report, nor what action he suggested as a result of that report; is that right?
A To this I can only say that this report which is now before me I have never seen before. I do not know whether it was ever shown to me. From the remark which was made on the last page, I had to gather that Dr. Bartsch, who was an assistant of Dr. Rothenberger in Court No. III, Case No. 3.the Administration of Justice, at least told me something about the contents of that report, but I cannot remember it.
Q On the basis of the report you would be willing to modify your earlier statement, I presume, that there were no cases in Hamburg in which the judges were criticized for being too lenient?
A That, of course, according to what I have seen now, I have to correct. I only want to say that I intended to say before that Dr. Rothenberger never told me anything about it. If Dr. Bartsch at one time made the remark of that kind to me, well, I cannot see at the moment whether these matters concerned ma personally. I have to confess that I can't remember it.
Q Do you recall by any chance the series of letters exchanged between Kauffmann and Rothenberger about the time you were appointed as presiding judge of the Spacial Court in which Kauffmann requested of Rothenberger and Dr. Rothenberger requested of the various courts in the Hamburg area that he be kept informed of the more important criminal cases that came before the Spacial Courts and other courts in the Hamburg area?
A (No response.)
Q Let me show you the photostat copy of that series of letters. (Documents handed to witness.)
A These letters are quite unknown to me. Dr. Rothenberger, as president of the District Court of Appeals, exchanged this correspondence with the Reichstatthalter - Reich Governor - and I had nothing to do at the District Court of Appeals.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibits are in evidence, aren't they?
MR. KING: They are not in evidence, yet, your Honor. I may possibly offer them later.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
A (Continuing) These are letters, that is, correspondence, which Dr. Rothenberger, as president of the District Court of Appeals, had with the Reichstatthalter. I had no possibility to see them because Court No. III, Case No. 3.I had nothing to do in the District Court of Appeals.
Q Now, as judge of the Spacial Court in Hamburg, do you mean you never heard of the practice of referring for Dr. Rothenberger's notice the more important criminal cases that came before you? Let me read that letter. This is a letter from Dr. Rothenberger to the prosecutor-general of the Henseatic Court of Appeal and is dated the 26 of September, 1939, and Dr. Rothenberger includes with his letter the letter from Kauffmann. Ha says:
"The Reichstatthalter Karl Kauffmann, in his capacity as Raich Defense Commissioner for the area of Military District 10, has commissioned me on the basis of the enclosed letter to keep him informed of the more important criminal cases dealt with by the Special Courts within the area of Military District 10. I, therefore, request you to sent me a copy of the indictment in all politically important cases or cases which are of spacial interest to the public when you file the indictment with the Spacial Court."
That letter, the original of which you can see is initialed by Grasser, the prosecutor. Now, I thought it was possible that you, as judge of the Spacial Court, might have had some discussion with Grasse about this matter. You have no recollection of it, though, is that correct?
A. No, I don't remember.
Q. May I say that the letters to which I have been referring to are identified with the number NG-2216. I would like to show you another letter. This letter has not been offered in evidence. It's identified as NG-2215. It's dated the 13 of June 1941. It's addressed to Dr. Freisler from Dr. Rothenberger. Now, you will observe that this letter follows by only three days your conference with Dr. Rothenberger on the report which we discussed a few moments ago. I'd like to have you turn, if you will, to the top of Page 2. I want to read you a paragraph and ask you what your recollection may be of the idea expressed there. Here's what Dr. Rothenberg says in that paragraph. It's on line 3 of Page 2 in the copy which you have.
"If too many culprits are brought before the Special Courts which might be sentenced as public enemies, and if every act according to the Public Enemy Statute, regardless of its nature, must be sentenced by the Special Court, then the Special Court loses the intended effect as court martial of the homeland. There is a danger that the population does not see anything special any more in the fact of being brought before the Special Court, and therefore the intimidating effect of an indictment and sentence of a Special Court is lessened. Because of this, the effectiveness of the Special Court is in great danger."
Then if you will turn to Page 4 of that same letter, Rothenberger makes the following suggestion to the effect that if the prosecution in any case brought under Paragraph 2 of the Public Enemy Decree is to ask for five years or more than five years, the indictment should then be filed with the Special Court. But in lesser cases, Rothenberger suggests that the indictment be filed with the Penal Chamber unless two years of hard labor would be sufficient, in which case the indictment would be filed with the Local Court.
Now the last portion which I have read, or the last portion which I have just summarized, is to be gained from the suggestions which Rothenberger makes on Page 4. Now I ask you, as judge of the Special Court in Hamburg, did the subject of the paragraphs which I have just read ever come to your attention in your conferences with Rothenberger?
A. The letter which I have before me is not known to me, but the thought which is expressed here by Dr. Rothenberger is known to me. It has been frequently discussed.
Q. So that if someone was to make a statement that the Special Courts in Hamburg were not particularly established to return severe sentences, you would say, on the basis of that letter, that at least Rothenberger at this time didn't think so, is that right?
A. Excuse me, but I didn't understand the question.
THE PRESIDENT: You can construe that from the letter?
BY MR. KING:
Q. You believe, do you not, that the expression in this letter indicates that at this time the Special Court was to be a court primarily for returning severe sentences?
THE PRESIDENT: You needn't answer the question. You are asking him to construe - - - - - - the comparatively plain language of the letter which you have read. It's not necessary to have his construction of it.
MR. KING: I think, Your Honor, we have no more questions to ask this witness.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. I should like to ask you two or three questions, witness. I understood you to say that Rothenberger secured a decree which eliminated any possibility of Party interference. Did I understand you correctly?
A. No, Your Honor. That is a mistake because the decree was not actually issued by Dr. Rothenberger. It w as issued by the Gauleiter. Dr. Rothenberger caused the Gauleiter to issue it.
Q. Yes. You referred to it as a decree. What I want to know is, whose decree was it? The Gauleiter's?
A. A decree by the Gauleiter which was valid for the entire Party organization.
Q. Valid in your district in the Gau?
A. In the Gau of Hamburg, yes.
Q. Again you referred to a decree which required that a lawyer who was going to represent a Jew must secure a permit to do so from the Kreisleiter, and you said that that decree, or that that practice was changed by reason of Dr. Rothenberger's arrangement with the Gauleiter. Whose decree was that that required such a permit from the Kreisleiter?
A. Concerning the permit there was a. decree by the Reichsleiterthe Reich leader of the Reich Legal Office, Dr. Frank. It was an internal decree for the Party.
Q. That was from Headquarters?
A. Yes. From the supreme leadership of the NSDAP.
Q. Are there any others details that you could give us concerning the nature of that decree in addition to what I just quoted?
A. I described the course of events before. I don't know, Mr. President, whether you mean individual cases?
Q. No, no. The substance of this decree was that permission to represent a Jew in court must be secured from the Kreisleiter. Is that it?
A. Yes, indeed, that was the substance.
Q. And it applied throughout the Reich?
A. That applied throughout the Reich.
Q. One last question. You discussed the practice concerning preview of cases to be tried, and said that reports were male on the basis of the indictments. Were the files also presented end discussed at the preview?
A. No. The files were not present. Only the copies of the indictment were brought along by the judges.
Q. Thank you. That is all.
BY JUDGE HARDING:
Q. The law applying to Jews and Poles was applied in Hamburg, was it not ?
A. Personally , I have to say that I don't know of any single case where it was applied; and if I am correctly informed, I said before already I don't even know that decree. If I am correctly informed, it is a question of Jews and Poles from the eastern territories, and we didn't have any in Hamburg, so practically that could not possibly come up in our district.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead with your redirect examination.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q. A few short questions in re-examination. First, Mr. President, may I refer to the question concerning the plight of counsel for Jews. Dr. Becker , is it correct that that decree which you mentioned referred only to lawyers who were Party members and intended to represent Jews?
A. That decree referred to all the members of the National Socialist Party, its formations and affiliates organizations; because, for instance, if I may give an example, if an accountant wanted to represent a Jew and he was only a member of the German Labor Front but not of the Party or any of its formations, even then that accountant had to obtain, as it was in Hamburg, the approval of the Gauleiter.
Q. And wasn't the meaning of the decree which you have described that Dr. Rothenberger in fact wanted to have the decision by having that right delegated to him by Kauffmann?
A. Yes, Dr. Rothenberger of course wanted to draw these matters from the influence of Party fanaticism in the interest of the attorneys.
Q. You said before that in all cases of which you know the approval had been given?
A. Yes. There may have been some cases where it had been denied , but I have to admit that I cannot remember individual cases because there were hundreds of applications that were made.
Q. Witness, you saw the letter from Freisler to Dr. Rothenberger. You saw it here, and you became familiar with its contents.
A. That is a mistake. It's the other way around.
Q. Oh, yes, the other way around: from Rothenberger to Freisler-where it is said that one should not place too many culprits indiscriminately before the Special Court, and that cases where one would expect less than five years in a penitentiary should be brought before the Penal Chamber.
Did Dr. Rothenberger manifest to you any tendency against the extension of the activity of the Special Courts?
A. Yes. That was repeatedly the subject of discussions.
THE PRESIDENT: We have run over our time. I am sorry. We will recess for 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: May I continue with a brief re-direct examination of the witness Becher.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q. Dr. Becher, I was just coming back to talk about Dr. Rothenberger' s letter to Freisler which showed that Dr. Rothenberger objected to the limited use of the Special Courts, and he protested against an over-loading of the Special Courts. I now want to ask you to extend your remarks. Did he fight that otherwise too?
A. Yes. That was discussed repeatedly. The prosecution from time to time used to file almost all matters with the Special Courts. Therefore, the Special Court was over-burdened to such an extent and the other divisions, that is the penal chambers, did not have very much to do, and so an impossible condition arose. Therefore, currently again and again it was discussed and we judges also told our president that it was our wish that actually only those cases of the most serious criminality should be brought before the Special Courts, and typical war crimes.
Q. Witness, the prosecutor has put the letter of the 36th of September 1938, from Dr. Rothenberger to the General Public Prosecutor, to you. In this letter Reichsstatthalter Kauffmann asks for a report and information regarding indictments before the Special Court. Do you know that the Reichstatthalter after the outbreak of war, in his capacity as Reich Defense Commissar, had a right to obtain information about these matters?
A. No, I am not familiar with that.
Q. In your farewell address when Dr. Rothenberger left for Berlin you were speaking about the good cooperation between the Party and the Administration of Justice. Whose interest did you in this cooperation regard as being safeguarded primarily when you said this in your farewell address -- the interest of the Party or the Administration of Justice?
A. Naturally the interest of the Administration of Justice.
Q. You mentioned the relationship of Dr. Rothenberger to a man like Rielke in Hamburg. May I ask you briefly what Dr. Rothenberger's relationship was to men like Frank and Freisler? You surely are very well informed about this.
A. Dr. Frank was, after all, until 1942 the chief of the NS Lawyer's League and the chief of the Reich Legal Office. I know from numerous remarks that Dr. Rothenberger did not like Dr. Frank's personality because of his vain, and I would like to say show-off manner; he did not like it at all. Dr. Frank was a man who could speak fluently. but usually there was nothing behind it; the same was the case with Dr. Rielke. Dr. Rielke was an intimate friend of Dr. Frank, and through the whole manner of his behavior in Hamburg he had fallen into disfavor with everybody, also because of his vanity, etc.
Q. That is enough, witness. You mentioned that you hardly knew the law against Jews and Poles, and that as far as you knew it was not important in Hamburg. Was that due to the fact that there were no Polish workers in Hamburg because it was a big city?
A. One has to assume so. On the other hand, I believe that there were Polish workers in Hamburg--
JUDGE HARDING: Dr. Wandschneider, I have a question with relation to this matter. You speak of many cases in which permits were granted to represent Jews in cases in Hamburg. Were those cases only civil cases, or was that true of criminal cases?
A. They were without exception civil cases.
JUDGE HARDING: Thank you.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you, I have no further questions to this witness. I have concluded the examination of this witness. May I then call-
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. I would like to be sure I understood. You mean that the decree which I asked you about before, with reference to permits to represent Jews, did not apply to criminal cases?
A. The decree as such referred to all cases. In the case of criminal law, however, if a Jew was indicted before a court, the court appointed an official defense counsel for the Jew, and in that case the Jews no longer needed a permit, so that in practice such cases did not exist.
Q. But the decree made no exception?
A. No, the decree did not make any exception.
Q. Thank you.
BY JUDGE HARDING:
Q. Were there Jews tried in criminal cases in Hamburg?
A. Yes, there were.
Q. Over what period of time?
A. Well, I can only tell you from my own experience that perhaps during the course of the war, as long as I was in charge of the Special Court, I had Jews before court in three or four cases during the entire six years. They were all cases of violations against the war time economy.
Q. Did you try Jews after the decree against Jews and Poles had been issued -- in Hamburg?
A. I am unable to tell you that because I don't know when it was promulgated; actually I don't know it.
Q. Do you know any-- Did you try any Jews in Hamburg after -- or in the Hamburg area -- after the war -- after October of 1939?
A. Yes. During the time I was presiding judge of the Special Court, and that was during the war.
Q. Well, when you tried these Jews, you say it was your opinion that the law against Jews and Poles didn't apply to them?
A. In my opinion it did not. They were Jews who were natives of Hamburg - residents of Hamburg - and if I remember correctly, this law against Jews and Poles applied only to the people from the Eastern territories, but in my cases they were Jews who had always lived in Hamburg.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you. Your Honor, I have no further questions.
I have concluded my examination. May I now call the witness Dr. Hartmann.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
MR. KING: Your Honor, I should like to introduce or I should like to have identified two of the documents which we discussed with this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you need this witness for this purpose?
MR. KING: I think not -- unless Your Honor wishes to have him here for this purpose. The first of these is NG-2215 -- excuse me, NG-2216, for which we would like the Exhibit No. 587 reserved, and the next one is NG-2215, for which we would like the Exhibit No. 588 reserved.
THE PRESIDENT: The documents may be marked for identification and the numbers reserved.
HANS HARTMANN, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE HARDING:
You will stand and hold up your right hand and repeat after me the following oath: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER (Attorney for the Defendant Rothenberger):
Q Witness, please state the date of your birth and your personal data.
A I was born on the 28th of April, 1908, in Hamburg. I studied in Freiburg, Geneva, Munich and in Hamburg. In 1930 I passed the referendar examination, and in 1934 the assessor examination with excellent. In 1935 I passed my doctor's examination; and in the beginning of 1935 I was appointed local court judge; and at the end of 1939 judge at the district court of appeal.
Q When did you enter the party? -- And, did you belong to any affiliated organizations of the party?
A I entered the party in May, 1933; and in the SS November 1933.
Q What were the reasons for your entering the party?
A I wanted to become a judge, and without being a member of the party or one of the affiliated organizations of the party, due to the practice followed at that time, that was impossible. The appointment of judges was undertaken at my time by the Reichstatthalter personally, and nobody was promoted to be a judge -- none of the younger jurists at least -- who did not belong to the party or one of its affiliated organizations. A special reason for joining the SS particularly I did not have at that time. There was no difference between the SS and the SA; one could say at the most that at that time the SS had a somewhat better reputation.
Q Please describe your career in the SS briefly.
A Until 1937, beginning of 1938, I did the usual service in the SS; in particular this was obvious what was at hand as legal counselor. At the beginning of 1938 I participated in maneuvers with the armed forces, and from then on I no longer did any SS service in particular, not during the entire course of the war.
Q Witness, may I interrupt you. The official rank is the only thing of importance here, the official rank which you held when you entered your active service.
A When I ended my active service I had the official rank of Rottenfuehrer; that is the second lowest rank. Then, in 1939 I was promoted to the rank which I had achieved with the Wehrmacht, that is of Unteroffizier, sergeant; without having done any service I was promoted to Unterscharfuehrer in the SS; and then in 1943 -- in the meantime I had become a first lieutenant in the army -- I was automatically promoted to Untersturmfuehrer, the equivalent rank of a first lieutenant.
Q How did you contact Dr. Rothenberger?
A In May, 1934 when I was taking my assessor examination, the oral examination, Dr. Rothenberger entered the room surprisingly, and for a while he listened to my oral examination; and then he asked me to come to see him, and took me over to the service of the administration of justice; and, that was after all in accordance with my wish.
Q Did Dr. Rothenberger take you over into the administration of justice because of your excellent examination results?
A Yes, that was my impression; that must have been the decisive reason for it.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Wandschneider, it comes to our attention that the witness did not state his name. For the purpose of the record -we know who he is -- but let him state his name for the purpose of the record; let him state his name so that the record will be complete.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I beg your pardon, your Honor, that I did not ask him that question.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q Witness, please for the record state your name.
A My name is Hans Hartmann.
Q Witness, at that time, due to your cooperation for many years, you could form a judgment about Dr. Rothenberger's principles of selection in his personnel policy. Can you form an opinion whether he promoted or favored party members in promotions in the administration of justice?
A One has to differentiate here between the young, members of lower courts and the leading position which of course were held by older gentlemen. As far as the young picture lawyers were concerned, Dr. Rothenberger always selected those good people from each year; he tried to obtain these who had proved by their examinations that they were above average. I am, for example, thinking of two people who passed the examination with excellent. They were Doppler and Stoeder; and I am thinking of others who passed with very good. They were, for example, Vogatski and Hasche, and von Wedel and Bartsch.
Q Thank you, witness.
A In this selection of these young, future lawyers, Dr. Rothenberger, I should like to say, did not attach the slightest importance as to whether they had joined the party before or after 1933. For him it was decisive what their accomplishments had been and their personalities. I recall of the young jurists actually, at least those I have just mentioned, only one who had joined the party already before 1933, and that was Deppler who passed his examination with auszeichnung - excellent. As far as the older jurists arc concerned, who held positions in the administration of justice at Hamburg, I can state with certainty that in the time of 1934 when I came to the administration of justice and in 1942, in that interim -- that was the time when Dr. Rothenberger went to Berlin -- in 1942 -- not a single old party member held an important position in the administration of justice of Hamburg. I could state the names in detail, but I shall limit myself to saying that, for example, the president of the district court of appeal, the local court president, and the president of the district court, the general public prosecutor, and the senior public prosecutor never had been old party members; and that in the leading positions of the Hamburg administration of justice, I am here thinking of the vice president, the personnel referent and the person in charge of personnel matters, and medium grade officials, no old party member ever hold these offices.
Q Thank you. Did Dr. Rothenberger ever send you to England?
A Yes. That was at the end of 1935. I studied English jurisprudence. I also published a book about English jurisprudence, and I had received the praise of the international law association for this book. Moreover, my wife is an English woman. For those reasons in 1935 Dr. Rothenberger selected me. There was an active interchange between young German and young English jurists; and Kenan Anson, Master of the Temple, was in charge of it on the English side; and Dr. Rothenberger on the German side. The main purpose of my visit was -- at least that was the mission which Dr. Rothenberger gave me -- that I should interest myself in the position of the English judge in practice and should inform myself about it.
Q Thank you. For how long did you work for Dr. Rothenberger, and in what different functions?
A I worked for Dr. Rothenberger from May, 1934 until May, 1938; and then again from September, 1942 until the end of 1943. My function in Hamburg then lay in working with civil cases. I am a civil judge only, and did not concern myself with criminal law at all. For instance, I worked with the complaints in civil and commercial cases, and gave expert opinions in difficult legal problems for the Hamburg Senate. The president of the district court of appeal was something like a syndicus, a legal advisor of the Hamburg senate for difficult legal problems.
Q Witness, you came about one year after the seizure of power to Dr. Rothenberger in the administration of justice of the land. What was the situation regarding the administration of justice at that time?
A When in 1934 I came to the administration of justice, Dr. Rothenberger was sometimes of a difficult situation. The Reichstatthalter Kauffmann, who, however in the course of time did prove to be a moderate personality, and was recognized as such as an old party member, was still closely tied to his old comrades, and I gained the impression as though it was not possible for him from the very beginning to withdraw from their influence altogether. For example, I am thinking of this: At that time Hamburg lawyers appeared before the courts even if they were not party members, and in all seriousness they were of the opinion that as far as criminal deeds of old party members, the regular courts should actually not be competent because the judges had not cooperated in the conquering of this state, and, therefore, they could not see the psychology of an old fighter.
Therefore, I gained the impression that for Dr. Rothenberger, that during the first time it was rather difficult to convince the Reichsstatthalter of the necessity of an objective administration of justice. Concrete difficulties, for example, arose from the fact that old Party members who had committed some offense, tried, in regard to the prosecution before the courts of their offenses through their connections with their old Party friend, Kauffmann, to get off more easily.
In many cases Dr. Rothenberger succeeded in preventing such attempts, but during the first period, when he himself did not yet have the possibility to influence Kauffmann in that manner, as a person and privately as he was able to do later on, it did happen, as far as I remember, that he did not always succeed to prevent Kauffmann from complying with such wishes of old Party members.
Q What was Rothenberger's relationship to the Party altogether and to old Party members? Did they value him highly or not?
A It is my impression that Rothenberger's relationship with Kauffmann was good, but in the circles of old Party members, that is, the leading Hamburg national socialists, Rothenberger was never really recognized fully. I, myself, worried about this and wondered what this was really due to.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. Counsel and the witness must realize that this testimony is altogether cumulative; that we have heard the great mass of evidence along the same line and, therefore, it should be brief.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Your Honor, I shall now go over to the important questions. Thank you very much.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q Can you say something about Dr. Rothenberger's attitude to the Jewish problem? What attitude does he display in Hamburg?
A Well, I know, of course, Dr. Rothenberger rather well and I believe I may say that he is not an anti-Semite by nature. I gather this from the fact that, for example, I never privately heard him make a derogatory or angry remark about the Jews.