This sentence is completely unclear. In any case, the following becomes evident from the sentence, that with this travel report a letter was enclosed which apparently came from the WVHA, so that the orders for construction material were issued by the WVHA. It is shown that later on the central construction management was also included. Therefore, I don't think that we can assume that my sales department -- because after all the individual sales contracts did not pass through my hands -- could see whether the material was supposed to go to the concentration camp Auschwitz; and in no case could my department know for just what purposes this material was needed.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, may I ask for the part of the transcript which the Prosecutor has just handed to you? I should like to show it to the witness and have him comment on it.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE PHILLIPS): While he is looking at that, I should like to ask a question.
EXAMINATION BY THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE PHILLIPS):Q.- When did you say that you went to Posen?
A.- Yes.
Q.- I say, when?
A.- In October 1940.
Q.- You stayed in Posen until the end?
A.- Until April 1944.
Q.- Then you went to Hungary.
A.- Yes.
Q.- While you were in Posen, I understood you to testify that you knew nothing about large numbers of Polish workers being transported to the Reich?
A.- Yes, your Honor, I said that I did not hear that the Poles were maltreated.
Q.- I didn't say anything about "maltreated." I spoke about their being transported from Poland to the Reich.
A.- I knew that Polish workers were sent from Poland to Germany.
Q.- In what numbers did you know they were being sent?
A.- I never heard of any figure, your Honor. However, there must have been very large numbers.
Q.- From Sauckel's and Speer's reports, there were in excess of 1,200,000.
A.- I didn't know the figure; and I have already said that it must have been quite a large number. However, I can't make any statement on the figure itself.
Q.- In other words, were any of those taken away from the industries in Poland of which you were the manager?
A.- That may have happened in individual cases, your Honor. A large part of the workers worked only for certain seasons. Here the workers were dismissed in the fall; and it is quite possible that workers were then, through the employment offices, sent to Germany. Beyond that I know also of individual cases where, for example, skilled workers, locksmiths, who had worked in my workshops, were to be sent to the Reich through the negotiation of the labor offices. Now, I'm talking of only a very few exceptions. However, I refused to comply with this. I opposed this very much because I needed these workers for my own enterprises.
Q.- Don't you know, as a matter of fact, that from the industries of which you were the manager all the Jews who were working in your factories and your plants were weeded out and either sent to Auschwitz or to the Reich?
A. No, your Honor, it wasn't that way at all. The Jews whom I employed were craftsmen, they were workers. They only worked on a temporary basis. They worked there in the years 1940 and 1941. Later on the construction work was no longer carried out to this extent. They did not belong to the permanent staff of workers whom we employed.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Witness, I am now going to hand to you the copy of the transcript. Are these the answers which you gave yesterday?
A. I read here in the first question, the last sentence: "Now do you wish us to believe that in spite of the fact around 400,000 Jews were rounded up in Hungary, put in camps, and then sent to Auschwitz to be gassed, you know nothing about it?" And I answered there: "No, I had nothing to do with it officially." I said that two times. I can't read the handwriting very well, unfortunately I can't read it. "Officially I heard nothing and I had nothing to do with it. That was an internal Hungarian matter."
MR. ROBBINS: The handwriting there says "I said that I learned about it."
A. "I said that I learned about it," Thank you.
Q. Yes, that is written in handwriting. Now, what is below that in typewriting which has been crossed out?
A. "Learned nothing about it."
Q. First of all the following was typed there "Learned nothing about it". Is that correct?
A. Yes, that was written with the typewriter and then in handwriting above that "I said that, I heard about it".
Q. Therefore, in handwriting here we have the opposite of what was first written down in typewriting?
A. Yes, that is exactly the contrary.
Q. And just what statement did you make or what do you intend to say?
A. I have repeatedly stated that we had heard that Jews from Hungary were brought to Germany.
MR. ROBBINS: If Dr. Gawlik doubts that Bobermin said what is written there in handwriting, I invite him to come up and listen to the sound recording. It is recorded there in Dr. Bobermin's own voice. "I said that I heard about it." I think that is further shown by Judge Musmanno's question, "When did you hear about it?" Bobermin said, "I heard about it when I first got to Hungary. What was originally typewritten that was stricken out, that was the English court reporter's stenographic transcript.
THE PRESIDENT: What did it say?
MR. ROBBINS: It said "Learned nothing about it". The sound track, however, shows "I said that I heard about it."
I might also say to the Tribunal that I recall that Mr. Simha translated it "I learned about that." That's the reason that Judge Musmanno followed up by saying, "When did you learn about it?" and I followed up with the same question, "When did you learn about it?"
THE PRESIDENT: Of course it is a little difficult to recognize the two statements he makes in the same answer. "I had nothing to do with it officially. I said that I heard about it." Officially I heard nothing and I had nothing to do with officially.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I don't want to claim that something else is contained therein. However, it is my duty as defense counsel to point out some unclarity because the court reporter took down something different. I don't know whether the sound track runs in English or German. If it is in German, for example, then there may have been a mistake.
MR. ROBBINS: What the court reporter took down doesn't have anything to do with what Bobermin said. That's what she understood the translator to say. I might say that I understood the court interpreter to say something different. Mr. Simha himself says he said something different and apparently Judge Musmanno understood him the way we did, otherwise wouldn't have showed up with the question.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, no matter what anybody understood, the original statement from Dr. Bobermin's lips is recorded. It is on the sound track and you are at liberty to listen to it just as Dr. Bobermin spoke it. If you doubt the translation make your own translation.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Do you have this document before you?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What comment do you want to make in this connection witness?
A. To this question about the deportation of Hungarians to Germany I have given at least 4 to 5 answers yesterday. I believe that all the answers state uniformly that I had knowledge of the deportation of Hungarian Jews to Germany. After all I heard about it, and about the purpose of this deportation I was told that these people were to be used in German Armament Industries. I did not hear and did not bring it in connection and later on as the Prosecutor asked me repeatedly I have stated that I never heard anything about the fact that Jews were sent there in order to be gassed.
Q. And when you say that you heard about it, just to what did you refer as you are alleged to have said you heard about it?
A. I heard about the fact that Jews were transported to Germany. I have always expressed that in answer to repeated questions. I am asking myself now if the matter had been so clear at the time just why was I repeatedly asked about the question. It would have been completely useless.
Q. How many times were you asked this question altogether?
BY THE PRESIDENT: We are about to take a recess and you needn't pursue the subject any further, Dr. Gawlik. Be prepared to take up another subject after the recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess for 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. GAWLIK: May it please the Court, I have no further questions to ask this witness. I wish to read the transcript. Since the prosecution has regarded this statement by Dr. Bobermin as so important, I shall submit this transcript as Bobermin Document 1, Exhibit No. 1. I wish to prove by that it was unclear and doubts can exist as to the original form of the statement, and that in any case it should be regarded as proven, namely, what Dr. Bobermin said repeatedly about the extent of his knowledge.
THE PRESIDENT: I have in my hand, Dr. Gawlik, the German translation taken from the sound track. It has been very carefully prepared and I would like to have you see it and then have it filed with the translation which you are making Exhibit 1, the English translation; then both of them, the German and the English, will be in the record.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, I can't see any purpose in marking a preliminary copy of the transcript in evidence in this case. The official transcript in both German and English will be carefully monitored against the sound track and I can't see any purpose in putting in a preliminary copy of the record. It doesn't prove that there is any unclarity about it. It proves that the English court reporter made a mistake in copying down the court interpreter's words, but I don't see that proves anything as far as the testimony of the defendant is concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, for want of a better reason, the Tribunal wants it.
MR. ROBBINS: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: When you have finished looking at the German, Dr. Gawlik, will you give the German and the English to the Tribunal? You may keep them for your own inspection for a while if you wish.
DR. MUELLER-THORGOW (For defendant Georg Loerner): If the Tribunal please, several witnesses have been interrogated about the point what the relations were between Georg Loerner and Office Group W. I have been deliberating on the point whether there is any purpose in asking this witness about the matter.
As the representative of Dr. Haensel, I was reminded of Shakespeare, of Hamlet's last words. I have forgotten them again. I have been thinking about this, if Your Honors please, "the rest is silence." That is what I would like best, but on the other hand I am not quite sure in how far the Tribunal is aware of Goerg Loerner's insignificance in the W sector, and what significance the Tribunal has attached to the witness's testimony about the subject. I would therefore appreciate it if I might put a few questions to this witness which have been asked before. I shall be very brief. I would like you, Herr Bobermin, to answer as briefly as possible.
BY DR. MUELLER-THORGOW:
Q. Did Georg Loerner as the so-called Deputy Chief of so-called Office Group W have any real significance?
A. Not as far as my field of tasks was concerned.
Q. And you were who?
A. Office Chief of W-II.
Q. W-II? I see.
A. I cannot say anything about the other offices because I was separated too far from them, but I am inclined to assume so.
Q. Who gave you, as an office chief, your immediate orders?
A. Herr Pohl.
Q. And what if Pohl should be absent?
A. I cannot recall any such case, but I certainly did not go to Herr Loerner. I would either defer the decision or I made my own decision.
Q. Do you know Pohl's order according to which the office chiefs in important matters must consult Georg Loerner and report to him?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it ever carried out?
A. No. After a very brief period of time it was rescinded.
Q. Did Georg Loerner in his capacity as the second manager of DWB actually have any responsibility and the authority to make decisions?
A. I am unable to tell you because I know next to nothing about the internal conditions in DWB. As far as those companies were concerned which were under my charge and who were later united to DWB by contracts, Loerner never made any decisions nor did I ever ask him to.
DR. MUELLER-THORGOW: The rest is silence.
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness, who was the Higher SS and Police Leader in Hungary?
A. SS-Obergruppenfuehrer and General of the Police Winkelmann.
Q. And he was the highest SS official in Hungary, was he not?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you say that it was the position of the SS-Wirtschafter to act as liaison between the Higher SS and Police Leader and the WVHA?
A. You can say that up to a point, yes.
Q. That is what the documents show, is it not?
A. Yes. Yes, the SS-Wirtschafter was under the directions of the WVHA.
Q. And is it your testimony that the WVHA had nothing to do either with Jewish transports or the allocation of Jewish labor in Hungary?
A. Whether the WVHA had anything to do with it I don't know. I myself, anyway, had nothing to do either officially or personally with it.
Q. You don't know whether the WVHA had anything to do with it?
A. I can only deduce that from the documents I have seen here in this trial.
Q. If the WVHA had anything to do with it, you would have known about it, would you not?
A. I wouldn't say that so off-hand. I certainly knew nothing about it at the time. I have learned it from the documents here that transports of Hungarian Jews reached concentration camps, and from that one might conclude that at that time I was not concerned with the matter.
Q. One last matter, witness. It is true in 1943 that the Klinker Cement Company had moved its headquarters or its seat from Posen to Bielitz?
A. No, that is not quite true. The main administration of the Klinker Cement was always in Posen. The Klinker Cement G.m.b.H., as far as I know, had been registered in Berlin first, and was later registered in Bielitz, but the main administration of the Klinker Cement, that is, where the main books were kept, was always Posen.
Q. Registration of the company was changed, you say, from Berlin to Bielitz?
A. As I remember it, yes. Anyway, the firm was registered in Bielitz.
Q. Did you have, or did the Klinker Cement factory have industries in Bielitz?
A Not in Bielitz itself. It had the two leased factories, the Klinker at Rodkow, Witschin, and Bielitz, which was in Upper Silesia.
Q Well, Bielitz was a Kreis, wasn't it, - an area?
A Bielitz was a Kreis town.
Q Bielitz was a town and also a Kreis, was it not?
A Yes, to the best of my knowledge Bielitz was the main town in the Kreis of Bielitz. I think the Kreis was also called Bielitz.
Q Is it your testimony that you had no industries at all in the Kreis at Bielitz?
A No, not in the area of Bielitz, the Klinker cement GmbH did not own any factories. In that area, the Eastern German Construction Material Works had its brick factory, but not Klinker Cement.
Q And is Eastern German Construction Works the only industry under you that had factories in the Bielitz Kreis?
A Yes, I know of no other firm.
Q And is it your testimony that there were no inmates sent -First let me establish this. The concentration camp at Auschwitz is located in the Kreis at Bielitz, is it not?
A Yes, at a distance of about 50 or 60 kilometers.
Q And there were no inmates used, you say, from Auschwitz in any of the Eastern Construction Works?
A No, I know of no such occurrence.
Q Well, if it had occurred would you have known about it?
A Yes, that would have been the normal course.
MR. ROBBINS: Thank you; I have no further questions.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, please, I have a very few questions. I would like to put the German text to the witness, to give him an opportunity to finish his comments.BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Witness, a preliminary question. The question contains several questions, so to speak - doesn't it?
The question contains a number of facts. Now, what did you mean when you said, "I have heard it"?
A That applies to the fact that Jews in Hungary were being herded together, as it is put here, but I wasn't told about it in that form. What I was told was that they had been called up by the Jewish Labor Service. Nor was any reference made their being taken to a camp at the time.
Q And what did you now wish to express -- what did you want to say?
AAll I wanted to say was that Hungarians had told me that Jews were being sent from Hungary to Germany to work in armament enterprises. That is all I knew at the time.
Q Did you know more than that at the time?
A No, I did not know any more.
DR. GAWLIK: Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
If the Tribunal please, may I have a piece of advise? Shall I put this in an envelope and address it to someone, or shall I just submit it like that?
THE PRESIDENT: Just hand it to me, if you will.
It appears in the English translation of Mr. Robbins' question, these words: "And then sent to Auschwitz." In the German version of the question, which is taken from the sound track, the word Auschwitz does not appear at all. It says, "to a camp" -- "in ein lager." The word "Auschwitz" does not appear at all. But when we get the English translation of it, it says, "and then sent to Auschwitz." But in both versions, the English and the German, the words, "to be gassed", in English, and "vergast wurden", in German, appear.
DR. GAWLIK: But perhaps I might draw your attention to the fact that the witness said, first of all, "No", which is contained in the English text. "No." First of all he answered the question in the negative, completely.
THE PRESIDENT: And the same in the German.
DR. GAWLIK: Quite. He wanted to say, first of all - "No." And then he gave a few explanations of what he had heard. I would also like to draw your Honor's attention to the fact that the difficulties are those of the translation. I am quite aware that the translators are doing extremely difficult work, but that is what some times bring these misunderstandings about. But in this case it is quite clear that the answer was, first of all, "No."
THE PRESIDENT: I think we understand the situation now, thoroughly. Entirely.
No further questions of this witness?
DR. GAWLIK: No further questions, thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may leave the witness stand.
(The witness was excused)
DR. GAWLIK: If the Tribunal please, this, for the time being, is the end of my case on behalf of Dr. Bobermin. I would like to reserve the right to submit a document book which is now with the translation section.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will hear the defense of the defendant Klein.
DR. BERGOLD: If the Tribunal please, I have been informed that the document book of Klein has been distributed in the English language. I would like to make quite sure whether it is before the Tribunal already.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we have it.
DR. BERGOLD: Then I would ask permission to hear, first of all, witness Wintermayr.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will bring to the witness stand, the witness Leonhard Wintermayr.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, before the witness Wintermayr is brought to the stand I should like to direct the Tribunal to the ruling on the relevance of his proposed testimony. As I understand it, according to the notice that the defense have put in he will testify that convicts are incarcerated in German jails, and that moneys are placed in a fund for their benefit, for them, which will be paid to them at the end of their sentence, at the rate of 50 pfennigs a day.
If I understand that to be -- if my understanding is correct, it seems to the prosecution that there isn't any relevancy to this testimony. I don't see any bearing on the issues in this case. Perhaps an offer of proof on the part of defense counsel would clear up the matter.
DR. BERGOLD: If the Tribunal please, I have called this witness for two reasons. First of all, to show that in Germany - since the days of the kingdoms and empires, the days of the Weimar Republic, of the Third Reich, and today, prisoners must work - first of all; and secondly, have no claim to be paid in wages. That, rather, the wages for prisoner paid by factories, for instance, are to be paid to the prison, and that the inmate, on a basis, receives a sort of bonus; in the old days, 18 pfennigs, and 30 pfennigs, and today - because the standard of living is more expensive, is paid 50 pfennigs voluntarily. That money is never being paid out to them, and he receives it only, again, on a voluntary basis, without a legal claim on the day of their dismissal. As I have been informed, the Court always seems to be interested in the fact that concentration camp inmates became slave labor inasmuch as they did not receive any pay for their work.
THE PRESIDENT: You are speaking now of persons who have been convicted of a crime by the testimony of witnesses in a competent court, and sentenced to prison.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, I do.
THE PRESIDENT: That group doesn't interest us at all. The same is true in the United States, of prisoners sent to penitentiaries. They are not paid wages. And their labor is used on public institutions, for road building, for clearing trees, and that sort of thing. Whatever Germany wanted to do with persons who were convicted of criminal offenses does not concern this Tribunal. That is entirely Germany's business. We are interested in the labor that was procured from persons who were picked up by the Gestapo, or the security police, and the Gestapo officer signs an order of commitment, and they go into a concentration camp for an indefinite period, and those required to work.
Now, that may change your plan about the witness Wintermayr.
DR. BERGOLD: If the Tribunal please, I'd like to add one point I want to prove, if the Court accepts that, that Germany always handled it in this manner, I don't need this witness; but the regulation applicable in concentration camps was the general regulation which was always existent for prisoners in Germany. A concentration camp inmate also was regarded in Germany as a prisoner in that sense.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal is prepared to concede that it has always been the law in Germany that persons convicted of crimes amy be imprisoned and compelled to work without pay; and that violates no rule of international law. That doesn't cover the case of the Hungarian Jews, to quote the most recent example, or the Poles, or the Russian prisoners, who were never convicted. They were simply gathered up.
DR. BERGOLD: I understand. I see your opinion entirely; but wet thought that the Court and the prosecution would regard the employment of prisoners without wages as a crime because in Germany--and that I shall prove by my second witness--people who had committed an offense were committed to concentration camps, rather than coming up before a Court, that was a special procedure. That was a sort of cabinet justice. For the rest, this witness could testify that people in protective custody were also treated in the same manner. They also have to work, but they were not paid. I'm talking about persons who are still being investigated about their offense pending trial before their being sentenced.
THE PRESIDENT: If the investigation goes on for years?
DR. BERGOLD: They still have to work. But, of course, it doesn't last for years. A normal investigation might last nine months, perhaps.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, just nine months?
DR. BERGOLD: If the Court accepts it that the same applies to people in custody before their trial, I don't need the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, Dr. Bergold, we do not regard a man -6O32 as being lawfully convicted who has never had a chance to defend himself.
I mean a man who is arrested today by the Gestapo, the RSHA, the SIPO, and before moon an order of commitment is signed and he goes to a concentration camp; no formal accusation is ever made; he has no chance to defend himself; he is convicted by the signature of his accuser, the policeman. We can't regard him as a, person who is lawfully convicted of a crime or lawfully imprisoned.
DR. BERGOLD: I am afraid only, your Honors, that in that point you have a misconception of the manner in which somebody was committed to a concentration camp in Germany. I as a lawyer can tell you that in all cases when somebody was committed to a concentration camp, let us say because people who opposed the Third Reich made remarks, there were always investigations. The accused person was interrogated; witnesses were questioned, only there was no court. A report was made, and then the RSHA made its decision. It was what I would call cabinet justice, a procedure with the exclusion of the public; but it was some sort of procedure.
THE PRESIDENT: That's all right, but you don't mean to tell me, Dr. Bergold, that all of the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were picked up from the East were given a hearing?
THE PRESIDENT: That's all right, but you don't mean to tell me, Dr. Bergold, that all of the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were picked up from the East were given a hearing?
DR. BERGOLD: No, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about my case where happily I don't have to talk about the Jews at all. I'm only talking from the point of view of my small case, Klein. In this case the question of the Jews does not play a part in this special case. You are quite right about it otherwise.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you'd better call your witness; but when you question him have in mind what the Tribunal has already said as to Germany's right to require convicted persons to work without pay.
DR. BERGOLD: Of course, your Honor, I can only ask him about that point. That's all he knows about. I don't need the witness if you accept the other thing.
THE PRESIDENT: We do.
DR. BERGOLD: Then I shall forego calling this witness.
MR. ROBBINS: I take it from what Dr. Bergold has said that the witness is not an expert on the manner in which people were put into concentration camps and that there is no concession about that and that he was not going to testify that inmates would someday be paid.
DR. BERGOLD: No, he was to speak only about the general regulations in Germany, not about conditions in concentration camps.
THE PRESIDENT: You needn't call him.
DR. BERGOLD: Then I should like to call witness Helga von Rouppert.
HELGA VON ROUPPERT, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: Will you raise your right hand and repeat after me, please:
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.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated, please.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, before you answer my questions will you please wait a few moments so that the interpreter into English can translate my question into English, and question and answer will not then be confused. Will you please give us your full name?
A. Helga von Rouppert.
Q. When were you born?
A. 1st of May 1907.
Q. Where?
A. In Arnsberg, in Westphalia.
Q. Are you married, or are you a, widow?
A. I'm a widow. My husband was the victim of political persecution. He shot himself lest he be sentenced to death.
Q. Are you the sister of defendant Horst Klein?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, what was your father's position and what was his attitude towards the Party?
A. My father since 1910 was a district councillor in Westphalia. He was opposed to the Party from the beginning. This attitude became more intense as the years went on. In 1933 when he had to make up his mind between the NSDAP and the Communist chaos, he regarded the Party as the smaller evil.
Q. Did he join the Party thereupon, and, if so, why?
A. He joined the Party in 1933. His superior officer, Baron von Oehenhausen, who was the regional president of the Minden area, appealed to the sense of duty of his District councillors not to leave their posts. They were to co-operate. This was to prevent its happening that people who were not experts would fill their posts. The Minden area was regarded in our part of the country as reactionary and as that area in which the measures of the Party were least popular.
Q. Thank you. Did your father get into trouble politically?
A. He had enormous difficulties with political bosses in his district. Kreisleiter Horn was the civil servant in that area and my father regarded him as the laziest and most incompetent official.
Q. Did your father not have intentions to resign, and why didn't he do so?
A. He wanted to resign on a number of occasions. He believed frequently that he was no longer equal to the struggle. On the ether hand, he regarded the work in this district as the task of his life. He did not wish to hand it over to a Nazi who was Nazi 150%. For that reason people under him also asked him to remain on his Post. When he celebrated his 30th Service Anniversary in 1939 he wanted to be pensioned off. At that time the President of Westphalia. Freiherr von Luening, implored him to remain so that everything would remain the same in that district. Apart from those declarations it would not have been possible for my father to be idle and it would have been extremely difficult for him to find anything else at that age.
Q. To interpolate here, witness, the higher President of Westphalia, Freiherr von Luening, whom you just mentioned, was one of the victims of 20 July 1944.
A. Yes, I heard from his cousin, Freiherr von Troste, that he had been hanged.
Q. Witness, now can you tell me why your brother joined the Party?
A. In 1933 my brother believed that the Party was the only salvation between us, general collapse, and Communist chaos. After the German people party had decided in favor of the Party he thought it his duty to collaborate. He told me frequently that many decent people joined the Party as counter-balance to the Radical elements. Furthermore, he would have been unable to complete his training as a lawyer if he had not joined the Party.
Q. Can you tell me why your brother joined the SS?
A. In our area the SS was regarded then as the best formation of the Party.
They accepted only people with blameless pasts and blameless characters. It was unlike the SA. The SA had many people with criminal records and unsuccessful elements. My brother at that time was an enthusiastic motorcyclist. In his spare time he built little engines. At that time a motorized unit was formed in our part of the country and it was my brother's hope to find friends there who would share his sport enthusiasm. Moreover, he had to be in some formation in order to be allowed to take his legal examination. Among the existing possibilities, the SS motorized unit seemed to be the best to us.
Q. How long was he in service with the SS and why did he terminate his service there?
A. In 1934 my brother had a crash on his motorbike when on an official trip. He fractured his skull. It took him years to get over the consequences of this crash. Any other service was quite impossible for him and he needed his entire strength in order to complete his legal training.
Q. In other words from 1934 he did not do any service in the SS as such?
A. No.
Q. Is it true that your brother wanted to become a civil servant?
A. My brother wanted to follow our family's tradition. He wanted to join the Administration. He tried to be taken over after the examination by the Administrative Service. The official concerned in the Ministry of Interior turned him down although he passed the examination with flying colors. The reason given to my father was that the official did not regard my father as quite safe politically from the point of view of the Party and that is why he thought my brother was also unsuitable. All my brother could have done then would have been to have joined the traditional Administration or wait until trained as a Judge.
Q. Why did he not choose that career, as a Judge, I mean?
A. He knew from the time of his studies that the Party interfered very heavily with the traditional Administration in Germany.