The third column is headed with the words " Former Owners." The fourth column shows the date when consent was given to transfer the property to the new owner -- correction, consent was given to transfer the property to Holz. The next column shows the purchase price which Holz should have paid. The next column shows the entry of the name of the former owner, on the basis of the general consent of Holz to restify the registry date, consent which he gave on 24 April 1940. The next column shows the late on which the entry was made with the name of the new owner. The next column is the column that shows the previous owner, and that column is different, and the column of which I am speaking now shows the date of the transfer when the new owner took over.
Q Yes, making it ten columns. I am sorry, you still have one more column. You still have the last column. I am sorry.
A Yes, I have two more columns to explain. The next column shows the purchase price, and the notation of the name of the person who paid the purchase price that has been paid in accordance with the notary register, and with that I have read all the columns.
Q Yes, now Herr Rottner -
A Yes.
Q I should like to ask you one or two preliminary questions, and then I should like to have you proceed to take a typical case and explain in some detail what the particular transaction represented. Now under column three in the compilation you have the words "Former owner". In every case that would be a Jewish owner, is that correct?
A Yes, yes.
Court No. III. Case No. III.
Q. Now, Herr Rottner, will you please take a typical case which I should like to have you select and explain, beginning in the first column and continue through each of the succeeding columns exactly what happened in the history of that piece of real estate?
A. Yes I will. Nell, let us assume we are dealing with No. 5 on the first sheet, Volumn 31, Page 84. It relate to the house at 52 Guentherstrasse, The former owners were Tuchmann, Elizabeth, daughter of a merchant in Nurmberg and two other persons who owned this house together. Consent to transfer property to Karl Holz was given on 8 December, 1938 and an entry was duly made in the real estate register on this same date. The purchase price which was paid was Reichs marks 7,470. Then the entry was rectified. Following the general rectification, the previous owner was re-entered and on the 25 of August, 1941 Elise Tuchmann and the other two people had their names entered again. I have dealt with the consent to transfer and with the entry; both took place on the 23 of August, 1941.
On the same date, that is, on the 23 of August, the new owner's name was entered and the new owner was the Nazi Party with its seat at Munich. The purchase price paid was Reichsmarks 76,000. According to the certificate made out by the notary, special account No, 70202, Tuchmann. That was the name of the old owners.
Q. Yes. Now, Herr Rottner, may I ask you to again, on the case which you have just explained for us, may I ask you to look under the fifth column which is headed Kaufpreis or selling price and I ask you to note there the price 7,470 Reichsmarks. Approximately what percentage of the assessed valuation of the property did 7,470 Reichsmarks represent?
A. This amount of Reichmarks 7,470 as a rule amounted to ten percent of the taxable value. That was not so in all cases out it was like that as a rule.
I would like to say well, generally speaking, that it amounted to ten percent.
Q. Yes, Now, would you say that the taxable value in Germany, as it is in many other countries, is less than the actual or real value?
A. Yes. In many cases I think that would be so.
Q. Yes. Now, a moment ago you said that this was the amount which was supposed to have been paid to the Jewish owner. Let me ask you, is there any record that Gauleiter Holz actually paid that one-tenth of the assessed value to the former owners in any of these cases?
A. I don't think so. I don't know. I don't know for certain but I don't think that Holz paid anything but I don't know. It is just my opinion.
Q. Well, on your examination of the records of these pieces of property numbering more than 220 did you find any instance where the record showed that Holz had paid the owners this figure?
A. No, no. I cannot remember that I ever saw it in writing that Holz paid over that money.
Q. Now, may I ask you, please, to look again at Case 3 under Column 7, Do you find that?
A. Yes.
Q. That is the entry date for the new owner. You mentioned that the original Jewish owner's name was again placed on the record before the property was transferred to the new owner. Now, Herr Rottner, I want to ask just one question on that point. Was this a mere formal entry of the name or did it have some significance?
A. Well, the significance was that the former owners became owners again. The entry said that the entry of the name of Holz became invalid and the owners are again the persons who formerly had been owners. That meant that Holz was eliminated and the former owners were reinstated as owners.
Q. Will you explain then what the next step was? Did these former owners who were reinstated, did they in fact have control of own the property?
A. Well, in the real survey they appeared as owners but the new contract was submitted and that was done on the same day. In other words, the property was immediately retransferred to another new owner and in this case the new owner was the Nazi Party.
Q. Yes, Now, going to the nineth column, the next to the last column, we see there the figure of 76,000 Reichmarks which is, I presume, in this case very close to the assessed valuation of that property. What happened to that money? Was it actually paid over and if so, to whom?
A. On the basis of the notary's certificate this money was to be paid over to the special account No. 70202 for the Tuchmann family, that is to say, the former owners whose name was Tuchmann, but under the supervision of the Gestapo. I think that this was an account of the Gestapo and they just put the name Tuchmann there so that one should know whose money it really was, I don't really know. This is only a conclusion after all from the files.
Q. You conclude that the name Tuchmann after all from the files.
Q. You conclude that the name Tuchmann after the account number merely identifies it as money coming from the Tuchmanns but it was the account of the Gestapo. Is that correct?
A. I think that is how it was. I think that is how it was.
THE PRESIDENT: You don't mean that the money came from the Tuchmanns?
MR. KING: No.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what you said.
MR. KING: I am sorry.
A. (continuing): That money was really due to the Tuchmann family because they were the former owners, but it was transferred, or the idea was to transfer it, to this special account No. 70202, that special account of the Gestapo.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Yes.
A. And Tuchmann was just entered there as a sort of designation.
Q. Herr Rottner, did you find, in looking over this compilation of more than 220 cases, any instance where the property was in fact returned to the former Jewish owners?
A Well, it was returned in exceptional cases that may have happened, but it only happened where there were no new owners and in those cases the real estate register was rectified and a note was put to the effect that Holz was no longer the owner and that the owners were again the former owners who had been reinstated. That is to say, there was no new owner and in that case the property again went to the former owners, the true former owners. Such cases have happened but only a very few.
Q. Yes, Did you, Herr Rottner, in going over this compilation, find an entry concerning property originally by one Landsberger?
A. Yes.
Q. What case number is that, please?
A. I think Landsberger is Rook 11 -- I don't have the file number. That should be at the bottom. We always put those numbers at the bottom. Yes, I have found it. Gleisshammer Book 14, Volume 1173.
Q. That is identified by what number on the compilation which you have before you, Herr Rottner?
A. It is No. 9. It is the Red No. 9.
Q. On the second page of the compilation?
A. Yes, yes; on the second page.
Q. Herr Rottner, have you been shown the transcript of the record in this case at Pages 6628 and 6626 in which the Defendant Joel testified concerning the property transfer of one Meder Landsberger?
A. Yes, a man has shown it to me. In fact it is what I have got before me now.
Q. And is this the same Meder Landsberger here in Item No. 9 on the second page of this compilation about which the Defendant Joel testified?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell me, Herr Rottner, was this a typical case of Ayanization of property, the Landsberger case?
A. Nell, what of course is striking about this particular case is that Mrs. Landsberger was not a Jewess, See was of Aryan descent and she tried to defend herself against this transfer of property, and as far as I know her complaint worked and she was reinstated. That is to say, her daughter they became the owner. Her name is Meder Marianne.
Q. And Meder Landsberger eventually sold the property and retained the selling price herself, is that correct, on the basis of the findings which you have made?
A. I can't tell you that from looking at my list, but the files should show it. It says the purchase price was twenty-six thousand marks and the remainder will be due when the house is vacated. Who actually received the money, I can't tell you. It is very doubtful if any one can tell from the file.
Q. In any event, Herr Rottner, the original owner received the property back because she was not a Jew* she was an Aryan, and Holz's name was stricken and her name was reentered as the actual owner; is that correct?
A. Yes. There was an entry made amending the entry made on the 24th of January, 1941, and the date on which the new contract was made was the 15th of February, 1942.
Q. And do the files on that case show a letter of complaint from Meder Landsberger in which she raised the question?
A. Yes. As far as I remember there is a complaint contained in this file volume; in that letter she points out she is an Aryan and that she wants to get her property back.
MR. KING: We have no further questions of this witness. We do offer the document in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT; The exhibit is received. Will there be any cross examination? If so, it will take place in the morning.
We will recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 24 September, 194?, at 0930 hours.)
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 24 September 1947, 0930-1630, The Honorable James T. Brand, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of 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,
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, Will you ascertain if the defendants are all present?
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, nil the defendants are present in the courtroom.
THU PRESIDENT: Let the notation be made.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Your Honor please, before the cross examination begins, may I address myself to the Court about inquiries which the Court made to me yesterday. Now Exhibit No. 592 is NG-2221. I have English copies for all members of the bench. How Exhibit No. 576, which is marked for identification only, was NG-1884. That was an affidavit of Hans Gramm. Later Gramm took the stand but the record will show we withdrew the affidavit, which was only identified and not introduced. And Exhibit No. 560, the Court was Without copies, that is NG-1547, the affidavit of Otto Ankenorand, and I furnish the English copies to the Beach, that is also 2221.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit No. 560 has been received, has it not?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: It had been received, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: No. 592, was that received?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: No. 592 was received, yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Is No. 592 No. 2221?
MR LA FOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor. Both of those had been distributed, but apparently the copies did not get to the Bench.
I think that disposes of all matters in which the Court made inquires.
MR. KING: Your honor, before the cross examination of this witness begins, I have been informed that he has a correction or two to make in the testimony which he gave yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR KING: If that is true and my understanding is correct I ask that he be given an opportunity at this time to say whatever he wishes in supplementing his testimony of yesterday.
WOLFGANG ROTTNER - continued.
DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may make his corrections at this time. Mr. Witness, do you understand if you desire to make some corrections in your former testimony, you are at liberty to do so now, if you desire.
THE WITNESS: Yes, concerning the Landsberger affair, I said yesterday that it was a transfer from Mrs. Landsberger to nor daughter later; it was not her daughter to whom the property was transferred. I made a mistake there, because I was in a hurry. The Meder woman was not her daughter but she was a daughter of an electrician in Nurnberg, not her daughter, of the famous Landsberger, and the register showed it was transferred to the Secret account of the Gestapo. The former owners did not get that money; that is to say, I don't want to say so definitely, but this matter was simply transfer to that special account of the Gestapo, and the designation -- the name of the owner appeared in the account. The rectifications which were made in the reel estate register were only a matter of form, of course.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there my other comment to make?
THE WITNESS: No, there is nothing else.
DR. HAENSEL: Dr Haensel for the defendant Gunther Joel. I shall now begin with any cross examination, please.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q. Witness, you have done a great deal of work with your assistants on a chart which you have produced here, and commenting on these charts, will you please tell us why you made that compilation?
A. Mr. Einstein asked me to compile those charts.
MR. KING: Just a moment please. I don't think that question is relevant here whatsoever, why he made the compilation.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection overruled.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q. When you compiled the chart, aid you know from what point of view the compilation would be?
A. No. Mr Einstein simply told me he needed this chart and he wanted to know how many of those properties were transferred to Holz. He wanted to know how much real estate was taken away from the original owners. I told him that I compiled these drafts, and I then did tell him that I would be absolutely certain I would not be able to compile all those cases because I just cannot land all of then, but I would just do my best.
Q. Did you realize at the time that the compilation would be used in connection with Gunther Joel?
A. No, I did not know that. All I know was that this compilation was needed for a trial here.
Q. Do you know Gunther Joel?
A. No, a don't know Gunther Joel.
A. When one looks at this compilation one sees unless I am wrong that one has to distinguish between three important dates.
Will you please take a look at column four where the date is entered, when the property was transferred from the Jewish owner to Holz. Was that the same date?
A. Yes, as a rule it is the same date. Whether it was always the sane date, I cm not tell you that exactly, although I think in a majority of cases that is what it was. It all seems to be the 4th of December or the 5th of December.
Q. Well, as far as I can gather from the list the dates vary between the 4th and the 13th of December:
A. That is possible. That as possible, and that a few of these transfers were made after the 4th and 5th.
Q. Do you remember how those transfers were made?
A. No, I don't know, but the transfer was made at the notary's office, and the notary then produced a certificate, and I entered the result in the register.
Q. Were you the official recorder at that time?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Did Gunther Joel have anything to do whatsoever with this transfer?
A. I don't know whether he initiated that, or whether he had anything else to do with it, I could not tell you. The certificates were brought along to our office, and we h d to make the entries, and as long as these certificates were in order we made the entries, and if any certificates that were not in order, we postponed the entries for a while anyway, until we got an opportunity to deal with the entries in the register.
A. At that time Gunther Joel was in Berlin, or did he have anything to do with this transfer?
A. I should not think so. I never heard of it.
Q. I am now going to show you my document book. Will you look at page 13, please, and refer to Gunther Joel's Exhibit No. 23, page 13, in Document Book 3.
THE COURT: What document number would that be?
DR. HAENSEL: Fifty. Have you found it? Have you found it?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q. Far down the page you find a copy from the register number, 25 April 1940, and this is the document which was intended for the local court of Nurnberg. Would you read that document at this time, please, and then comment on it?
A. Just a moment so I am get where what you want. Let me look for it first, on page 13 I find something. This is what you want me to read. You want me to read it out loud?
Q. Yes, please read at out loud, and briefly explain to us what it is all about.
A. In other results the Aryan methods by the Gauleiter of Franconia in cases of the number of buildings following the offer for their purchase, and their declaration, their transfer could be made and the entries to have been made in the register from the effective dates, because there are former defects. That Decree of the Minister, 4 November 1939, Roman III, Section 5, 23861-39; I had special identification of Field Marshal Goering, and have been placed in charge of dealing with these Aryanization methods. In connection with the incident that occurred at the time, many entries on the real estate register were made in favor of Gauleiter Karl Holz, Nurnberg, and in favor of the purchaser, who is still to be nominated in other cases by consent to transfer of property.
Transfer has been made to Karl Holz, whose name was mentioned above in my capacity as deputy for Field Marshall Goering, and as PlenipotentiaryGeneral for the deputy of Gauleiter Karl Holz, I declare myself in agreement with all rectification of the real estate registered in all such cases, and I particularly agree in advance with all rectification in cases where they apply --
Q. Do you know that document?
A. Yes, it is in cur files.
Q. Does that contain all the files from which you made the extracts?
A. I should think so. Well, perhaps, not in every single one. In that part in which under law property was forfeited to the State, it would not have been included where the State requested it, that would not be contained.
Q. Now to put it briefly. What does that document say? Do you think it constitutes a power of attorney? What do you think it is?
A. A power of attorney, well, I don't quite know what I should call it. Well, you could call it an instruction for a power of attorney. Well, I mean, it does not call itself a power of attorney, but it states here, "I am in agreement with." "I am in agreement with the application for rectification."
MR. KING: Now if it please Your Honor, I object. The letter in any event speaks for itself, and the witness is not in a position to identify it further than that.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is sustaines.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q. Do you know what were the incidents which caused Holz to make out that document -- or rather, that power of attorney through which he lost those houses again?
A. I don't remember that.
Q. Were you living in Nurnberg at the time?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you maintaining under oath that those incidents which upset the entire population of Nurnberg, that certainly you knew nothing about those incidents?
A. Of course I knew about that. I knew about that. I knew the entire population was upset. Would you care to repeat your question, please.
Q. I am asking about the event which lead Herr Holz on 4th December to acquire those houses, and later that he handed them over again; did he do that voluntarily?
A. I don't know. I never met Holz.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Haensel, let me call your attention to the fact that this witness has done nothing more than to testify to certain summary facts from the record. He has done no more than to authenticate and explain the items in the official record.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q. Let's refer to the matter in your compilation. We have just mentioned that first date of the transfer to Holz, which is somewhere around between the 4th and 13th of December, 1938, and the column after that shows the entry of the former owner on account of Holz agreement of 24th April property re-transferred to the original owner, is that the document which we have just read?
A. From that approval for rectification of the register to be made that we received from the notary on account of this document, we were able to make the entries in that register.
Q. I ask you whether the document which you just read, that document of 24 April 1940, constituted the consent to make rectifications to which you were referring in your statistics?
A. Yes, yes. Well, that was the necessary document which we needed, and there these dates on which the entries were made in the real estate register, the 1st of February, etc., that is the date on which the entries were made in the real estate register as the result of this consent to make rectification.
Q. Yes, it is the consent to make rectification that we are speaking of, and the date on that is 24 April 1940, and, if you take another look at your statistics you will see in column six an entry of the former owner in connection with the general consent by Holz to make rectification, the register dated 24th April 1940, is that the file?
A. There could be when you say that famous electrician -
Q. What I want to know is whether the instrument which you read out loud is the instrument which is dated 24 April, and in fact, is the consent to make rectification which you have mentioned, that is 24 April, 1940?
A. No. That one, 24 April 1940, where that consent to make such rectification is attached to the instrument, and the files itself show that.
Q. Well, then that date of 24 April 1940, is that the second date?
A. Well now -
Q. Well, your statistics make quite a number of other dates, and the dates vary, there is a difference there, for instance, 28 October 1941, case one, 22 October 1941, 8 February 1942, etc., and above that they say "Date of the new owner."
A. Yes.
Q. Should one interpret your compilation to moan that there is another date, the third date when rectifications were made in the register?
A. The headings show quite clear "Entry of the former owner, 5 February 1941." It shows that in the 8th column; and the second date, as in Column three, that is to say, the same entry was made. That is what I mean when the former owner's name was entered.
Q. Please, will you tell us again what was done according to your compilation. Perhaps I may help you out a little bit. On 24 December 1938, I ask this, a few days later, in place of the Jewish owner Holz' name was entered, is that correct?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Now following the consent given on 24 April 1940 by Holz, that entry was made cancelled, then at some later date subsequent to the date I mentioned before, the property was transferred from the original Jewish owner to another person, is that correct?
A. Yes, there are three different developments or stages.
Q. Yes, three different actions?
A. Yes.
Q. Now I asked you before something about that second stage. I asked you about the stage of certain dates, or instructions dated 24 April 1940, did the defendant Genther Joel so far as you know have anything to do with those cancellations of the entries in the real estate register?
A. I did not hear anything to that effect at that time. I am hearing of it for the first time now, and I don't know.
Q. From the entries you have in the register, the only thing you found is that instrument dated 24 April 1940, which explains the action?
A. Yes, I found that instrument and I found the other instrument where it shows property is being re-transferred to former owners, and now the former owners are selling their property to the new owners. Those names have new been entered in the register, most of them at the same time.
Q But the date on which the name of the now owner was entered according to your compilation, is quite a different date and is a date that comes a groat deal later than the 24th of April 1940?
A Yes, that is because this is the date on which the entry was made in the real estate register.
Q Did you find in the files that on the 24th of April 1940 or immediately after that all those transfers of Jewish properties were effected?
A Whether all of them, that I can't say for certain because I didn't have an opportunity to make certain and to check up on all those many cases. I believe that is true of a groat number of those cases.
Q Please have a look at the Case 5 which is in the last column. What does it say in the last column?
A In the last column it says property had been forfeited in accordance with the 11th Executory Order concerning the Reich decree.
Q Do you know the date of that?
A No, I don't know the date by heart.
Q I'm referring to the Prosecution Document Book Number II, Number 47. That says 1941, Reich Law Gosetz, Page 1, 11th decree concerning the Reich Civil Law Court. May that be correct, but that was at the end of 1941?
A I don't know.
Q Please tell us whether that fact of property being forfeited as far as you remembered occurred immediately after the 24th of April 1940 and that instructions and directives were added to the files.
A I don't know. I can't tell you that offhand.
Q Do you know whether Guenther Joel had anything to do with that real estate campaign, that transfer of property which had originally been retransferred to the Jewish owners?
A I didn't know that at the time, and I don't know it now.
Q Would you please turn over a page and over the page you will find on Page 15 extracts from the real estate register. It starts with Gleiser, Volume 40, 1173. Is that extract identical with your Case 9?
A Yes, that is the Neder-Landsbeger affair. Yes, that must be the same affair.
Q Is that copy correct? Are those two identical?
A Well, I only have a brief extract here. I have here simply Neder-Landsberger, and so forth.
Q Now, will you turn over another page. There you find Volume 87, real estate Johannes, Clara Lavieta. I couldn't find that case in your extract. May it be that you have just overlooked it?
A That is possible. Just a moment. Johannes, 7, Page 84. Yes, Clara Lavieta, yes. "In accordance with consent to effect rectification ...." No, I haven't got that in my compilation. Well I'm not sure whether it is contained in that compilation. I wasn't able to check up on all these compilations myself. That would have been much too much work for me.
Q The next case, Gerstenhof, Volume 14, Page 55. In your register that's 131? In your compilation, your chart, it's 131?
A Yes.
Q Now, if you'll turn over the page again you find the next case, Gerstenhof, Volume 53.
A Yes.
Q In your compilation 123?
A Yes.
Q The next case in my instrument is Hinterder Festung. You haven't got that?
A Well, maybe. Maybe I didn't enter it. I just don't know.
Q The next case, Schoppershof, Volume 38; with you it's 33?
A Schoppershof 38, yes.
Q Next case, Schoppershof, Volume 42; you haven't got that one?
A Quite.
Q Now, if you'll turn over the page again, there is my last case, Schoppershof 31. With you it's 164?
A Yes.
Q There arc eight cases in this book and there of those cases you have not entered into your extracts?
A Yes.
Q According to the real estate register, are those eight cases and your hundred cases or more identical inasmuch as property was transferred from a Jewish owner to Holz either on the 4th of December or soon after and furthermore that on account of the consent to make a rectification of the 24th of April 1940 a retransfer was effected and then at a later date yet another transfer was effected? Is it the name as in all those cases?
A Yes. Naturally the dates vary. Of course they vary because not all those instruments were made out at the same time; but generally speaking all these cases are identical.
Q Would things be different if you were to compile another 200 of such extracts from the register?
A I don't think so. I think it would always be the same.
Q Is there any difference between your hundred cases and more and my eight cases?
A I don't know what you mean.
Q In the case of the eight that I submitted, you are now submitting a hundred. Does that change things materially, or does it remain the same situation?
THE PRESIDENT: You arc about to object, Mr. King. It is sustained. He is not a witness on this exhibit of Guenther Joel's. He is simply testifying to what he finds in the record.