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.
The question was immaterial.
Q Yesterday you said that Frau Landsberger was not a Jewess; but her name is Jewish, isn't it?
A Well, that name Landsberger can be a Jewish name, but it can be the name of an Aryan. There are all sorts of Landsbergers in this world. But perhaps the man was a Jew. Well, I can't tell you that offhand.
Q In that Landsberger case, was that transfer to Holz effected in connection with all the other transfers?
A The transfer was made on the 4th of December 1938. That means that that transfer was effected together with the others.
Q And was the cancellation of that transfer effected in the same manner in which the other transfers were made; that is to say, in virtue of the consent to effect rectification which you read out?
A I can't tell you. Frau Landsberger as far as I know was an Aryan; and as to whether the property in her case was re-transferred I just can't tell you.
Q Well, then in column 6 of your Number 9, under the heading "Entry of the Name of the former Owner," in connection with general consent of Holz to make re-transfer, what makes you put the same entry there as in column 3?
A 24/1/40, that's the date on which the entry was made in the real estate register, and the entry was made just the same as in Column 3. That is to say, the same owners are shown as in Column 3 in connection with directives in virtue of the consent to effect rectification.
THE PRESIDENT: That's 41, isn't it?
A Yes, 24 January 1941.
Q The date of 24 January 1941, is that the date on which the entry was made, or is that the date of the instrument which gave consent for making another entry?
A Well, it says "Entry of the name of the former owner in virtue of a consent to make a general rectification," dated the 24th of January 1941. Therefore, that is bound to be the date such as it was entered in the real estate register.
Q Well, if you read out anything at all, will you please read it out correctly? Will you read out again what it says in your list in the heading above Column 6?
A Yes, "Entry of the name of the former owner, in virtue of the general consent for rectification given by Karl Holz on the 24th of April 1940."
Q All right. And below that it says 24 January 1941. I'm asking you again whether that entry of the 24th of January 1941 was made in virtue of the same consent to make rectifications of the 24th of April 1940 in virtue of which all other entries were effected.
A I can't tell you that for every individual case; but one should be able to see that from the files. I can't remember all those files. I can't tell you all those things offhand. How could I?
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you a question, Witness?
A Yes, please.
EXAMINATION BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q In that sixth column at the top of the column it shows the date of the authority for the re-transfer of the property, doesn't it, namely Holz's agreement of 24 April 1940? Then in the column under that, the same column but lower down, is it a fact that those dates arc the dates when the actual re-transfers were recorded pursuant to the authority of 24 April 1940? Is that the situation?
A Well, that is the date on which the entry was made in the real estate register in virtue of the authority dated 24 April 1940.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Let me ask another question, please. Perhaps it will shorten matters. Is this exhibit which we have here a copy of the register? I mean does it set for the the items which do appear in the register? Is it taken from the register?
A. Yes, it is an extract from the real estate register.
Q. Then the things which appear here indicate what appear on the register, doe they not?
A. Yes, this is an extract. It is an extract, a partial copy, an extract.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q. Witness, now we'll go into the matter briefly again. Column 1 is contained in the real estate register?
A. Yes, Column 1 is contained in the real estate register?
Q. Column 2 is contained in the real estate register?
A. Yes.
Q. Is Column 3 in the real estate register?
A. Yes.
Q. Is Column 4 in the real estate register?
A. Yes.
Q. Is Column 5 in the register?
A. No. No, it isn't.
Q. The purchase price?
A. No.
Q. Is Column 6 in the register?
A. Column 6 is in the register.
Q. Is Column 7 in the register?
A. The date of the new owner, that is, the transfer to the new owner, yes, that is contained in the register.
Q. Is Column 8 in the register, the new owner?
A. Yes, that's entered, too.
Q. And Columns 9 and 10, the purchase prices; are they in the register?
A. No.
Q. Well, then the answer is, if I understand you correctly, the compilations you have made and which we have before us in a photostat do not constitute an extract from the real estate register?
A. No, not alone, not solely.
Q. But with the exception of the purchase price, the other dates and the other names are contained in the real estate register, are they?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. Is this correct, that in practice a difference is made between a scrutiny of the real estate register and a scrutiny of the real estate files together with the register? For example, if a person quickly wants to get some idea of what has happened he would have a look at the real estate register and not at the real estate files as well?
A. Yes, that does happen.
Q. In other words, if somebody is faces with the difficult task of choosing some characteristic example for Jewish transfers, when he has thousands of cases to choose from, do you think it is possible that such a person might have a look at only the register?
A. Yes. Yes, first of all we would have a look at the register of people. We would look for Jewish owners. Here that's Fleischmann, Meuller, Meyer. Those are not the sort of names which we would recognize as Jews from the register.
Q. Now, if in the case of Landsberger you found, to begin with, that the woman's name was Landsberger and that on the 4th of December 1938 her property was transferred to Holz and if in such a case you did not have the files available, would you then arrive at the conclusion that that woman was Jewish?
Q. Does the register show anything to refute such a conclusion?
A. The register does not show anything to refute such a conclusion. No, it doesn't.
Q. Concerning those eight cases -
THE PRESIDENT: If I may interrupt you, would the fact that the name of the owner was Landsberger coupled with the fact shown on the register that the transferee was Holz lead you to any inference as to whether Landsberger was a Jew or not?
A. Well, one would have to assume some cause. After all, as a rule Holz only took over such Jewish properties.
Q. You were not dealing with other evidence which might show on the other hand that Landsberger was not a Jew; in other words, you made no investigation as to the facts outside of the record?
A. No, I didn't. Well, as far as I know in the notary's instruments it says that Frau Landsberger was not a Jewess. It says that she was a Protestant, I think.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q. I think I'd better repeat my question. Does the real estate register such as we have discussed it and such as the Tribunal asked you, does it show that she is a Jewess or that she isn't a Jewess?
A. The register itself shows only the name, and from that name one cannot conclude definitely whether she is a Jewess or not.
Q. Well, and the Tribunal asked you whether the fact that the property was transferred to Holz allows of the same conclusion.
A. Yes, that certainly does point to the same conclusion.
Q. Well, that settles my question.
Q. In connection with those transfers of the 4th of December, did your superior or a commission interrogate you?
A. No, I wasn't interrogated in connection with that.
Q. You emphasize the word "I". Were your colleagues interrogated?
A. Well, interrogated, I wouldn't know. All I know is that there were frequent meetings, but as to whether that was in any way an interrogation, that I don't know.
Q. Do you know whether any disciplinary proceedings were instituted on account of those transfers? Do you know whether such proceedings were instituted against real estate officials and notaries?
A. I don't know.
Q. Witness, just think the matter over. Do you mean to say you don't know of any disciplinary proceedings?
A. Disciplinary proceedings instituted against officials - I don't know anything about that. I just don't know.
Q. Do you know Denzler?
A. Denzler? Who was he? Who was that man? No, I don't.
Q. Do you know Herr Hoesch?
A. You mean the president of the district court?
Q. I am asking you whether you knew him.
A. I know somebody by the name of Hoesch.
Q. And Denzler you don't know?
A. Denzler? Well, the name sounds familiar to me, but I don't know whether this is the Denzler you are referring to.
Q. Do you know Reinfried and Nettlek - the notaries?
A. Yes, I know them.
Q. Do you know Amtsgerichtsrat Dr. Leist?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you know the director of the district court Greiner?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you know whether those men in connection with those trans fers had disciplinary proceedings instituted against them?
A. Nobody ever told me about that and therefore I can't know.
Q. And you were not interrogated about those matters, were you?
A. No, I wasn't.
Q. I heard you say no.
A. No is what I said.
Q. Concerning these accounts which you have described in the last column, for example, a special account, special accounts of such and such a name, special account of another name, etc., and then property forfeited. Do you know how those accounts were started and who was the person who had the responsibility for the disposal of them?
A. I never saw those accounts and I don't know. All I know is that what has been entered in the files and as a rule it says special account of the Gestapo, and then the name of the former owner is also given.
Q. Do you know that in the case of people who emigrated payments were made from these accounts to the emigrant after a special tax had been deducted?
A. I don't know. We never heard about any such payments being made. In our work we had nothing to do with that.
Q. On the 4th of December 1940 were you very much over-burdened with work? After all, there were about four hundred pieces of property which you had to transfer.
A. Yes, we all had to work together and stick to it.
Q. Were you at work day and night?
A. Yes. On the first day, that was Sunday, we were all called together and we worked until late at night.
Q. And did you get special pay for it?
A. As far as I remember, we were not.
Q. I asked you whether you got special pay for it?
A. Well, I didn't get anything extra.
Q. You mean to say no?
A. Yes. No, I didn't.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, in the last -- I think the tenth column -
A. Yes.
Q. These numbers appear, many of which start with seventy thousand, and then various numbers follow. Were all of those seventy thousand numbers indications of the Gestapo special account to which you referred -- this 70,315, 70,276, and so on?
A. You mean the column before the last?
Q. No, the last column.
A. The last column on what page, please?
Q. The first page, if you please, or any of the pages. Take case one on the first page. The last column shows 70,315--
A. Yes, yes. That is the number of the special account. Special account No. 70,315.
Q. Yes.
A. It is the number of the account, the number of that special account.
Q. And were all of those accounts which ran in the seventy thousands--
A. Yes.
Q. --- numbers which represented these special Gestapo accounts?
A. Whether all those numbers indicate that they were the Gestapo special account, well, I don't know. I never saw those accounts. I mean I never saw those registers, the registers that were kept by the Sonderkonto (savings bank). We never saw those savings accounts.
Q. Well, what leads you to the belief that this 70,315 was the number of a special Gestapo account?
A. Well, I can only gather so because the next entry says special account No. 70,276, and that is why I think the line above, where the number has been left out -- see, in the first one it doesn't say number, it says simply 70,315, and the next, 70,276, must be the number of the account
Q. What I am getting at is where did you get the knowledge that those numbers do represent police accounts?
A. It says so in the notary instruments.
Q. I see. That is all. Thank you.
A. Not at all.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Witness, just one or two short questions, again referring to the Landsberger case.
A. Yes.
Q. Yesterday you said you had seen an excerpt from the transcript of the record in which the defendant Joel had discussed the Landsberger case. Now, there was a photostatic copy of the Landsberger case--
A. Yes.
Q. ---which the defendant Joel had in his hand. That didn't come out of the property register, did it? It couldn't have come out of the property register.
A. I can't remember that it came from the real estate register. I don't know. I haven't come across the name of Joel.
Q. If you don't know, witness, I certainly don't expect you to answer.
A. Well, I just don't know.
Q. Yes, all right. Now, in regard to the mistake which occurred in the seizure by Holz of the Landsberger property. You said that Mrs. Landsberger was an Aryan, did you not?
THE PRESIDENT: He said that.
A. Well, I said that the files showed that she was.
Q. Yes, and her husband was a Jew?
A. Yes.
Q. Which accounts for her name, of course. And when the property was confiscated, her's being a Jewish name, it was taken along with all the rest, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes. And then in September 1939 she complained to Holz, pointing out the fact that she was an Aryan. Do you find that letter in the files?
A. Yes.
Q. And later, so far as you know, as a result of this letter the property was returned to her because as an Aryan it could not under the present laws have been taken away from her.
A. Yes.
Q. Is that right?
A. Yes, I assume so. I assume that is right.
Q. And when she--
A. She lodged a complaint.
Q. Yes, and when she eventually sold the property, she got the money for it, is that right?
A. Yes, one is bound to assume so on account of the files, for she was an Aryan, but I don't actually know it for everything may happen in this world. All I can say is that I assume that she received that money. I wasn't there when she received the money and I didn't see it with my own eyes, and therefore I can't tell you. I can only speak for what I can see in these files.
Q. Yes -- I have no more questions--
A. I consider it a matter of fact that she did, but--
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
A. All right.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Your Honor, may I call the defendant Rothenberger to the witness stand? Do you wish me to do so before the recess or after? Perhaps you would like to take the recess now.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take our recess now, and then you may call the defendant Rothenberger. We will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)