THE PRESIDENT: My only wish is to knew your theory. If we knew what you were trying to show, we would know better how to rule, and therefore we would like to know your theory.
DR. KOESSL: I wish to try and prove that the Party had no influence on the proceedings.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, did you make observations according to which the Party officers interfered in these proceedings?
A Materially; there was one telephone conversation, for example. I had room 139, Rothaug had room 138, and Dr. Bauer, the medical officer of the district court was there. The date for the Katzenberger-Seiler case, which was set prior to 13 March 1942, had to be transferred to the 13th of March because of pro curing the expert opinion of the medical officer. In that connection, Rothaug had a telephone conversation with the Gau leadership and this was the contents:
An inquiry was made as to the postponement, what that postponement involved, what it meant. Rothaug answered that the expert opinion of the medical officer was needed. Further, it was evident that the person at the other end of the telephone asked whether that would mean a serious complication, and Rothaug said the medical officer of the district court would be all right, nothing was to be feared of him. The whole thing was only a matter of form; it was merely a matter of form, and a further postponement beyond the 13th was out of the question. The person at the other end of the telephone then evidently asked what Katzenberger's state of health was. Rothaug briefly exchanged a few words with Dr. Bauer and held his hand over the receiver. Dr. Bauer answered that he had once seen Katzenberger in the prison; he had not been struck by any obvious symptoms. Rothaug then said, "The Katzenberger thing will be all right; no difficulties arc to be expected." And thus the telephone conversation was finished.
Dr. Bauer then was given the files and, at the session, submitted his expert opinion.
That was one observation I made, but I made two further observations.
In one case, during the distribution or the allocation of the seats in the courtroom, not because of an infringement of a woman Party member of the Ortsgruppe, the Ortsgruppe Rosenhalle didn't get an invitation for that, but half of the seats were sent to the Gau leadership; they were sent to the Gau Propaganda. Office. The outer framework of the session in itself by far exceeded the normal framework of such sessions.
My third observation was that the SD appeared in uniform. One gentleman was there who had only been to see Rothaug once or twice -I would recognize him immediately if I saw him -- together with somebody else, who had come more frequently. Those two sat next to President Doebig. Contact with these officers was quite evident.
Q What did the interference of these Party officers consist of?
A I will answer that question as follows. Rothaug did not need an interference on the part of the Party. Rothaug's own ideological attitude was such that he did not need any political impulse or impetus as to how he was to proceed concerning the racial question. I believe that Rothaug would in no way be satisfied if one would dare to say that he needed tutelage in such matters. For him that was so much a matter of fact, he was so experienced in racial questions. As I have said already, in particular, in view of psychological evidence, on the basis of my many years of observation, on the basis of the results of all of my observations, I can only characterize this fact as such.
Q Did you make the observation that Rothaug ever once played the roll of which he was not really convinced that it was being applied rightly? Did you make the observation that Rothaug contrary to his convictions applied the laws?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: If your Honor pleases, -
THE PRESIDENT: It is not necessary to make any argument on that point. The witness could not answer this question unless he could read the mind of the defendant Rothaug.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I do not think the question is material?
THE PRESIDENT: Either way, the ruling as to the objection will be sustained.
Q Now, you mentioned two or one discussions with Freisler -
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I am sorry I didn't hear with whom?
Q One or two discussions with Freisler. Can you, for certain remember the subject of that conversation?
A Quite accurately.
Q Did the discussions concern the sentencing of Katzenberger or did it concern the sentencing of Seiler?
A I am quite certain that it concerned the sentencing of Katzenberger, because Under-Secretary Freisler immediately interfered and concerning Katzenberg said: The introduction of Public Enemy Laws and the Race Protection Laws, that is, the racial pollution within the meaning of paragraph 2 of the Public Enemy Laws, was an offense directed against the body or in the further meaning of paragraph 4 of the Public Enemy Laws, with adultery, that is to say, here, racial pollution, and because of Seiler's husband was a soldier. That immediately was a period of extremely doubtful application of the law. I remember that exactly, and the report to Rothaug extended to that point, and I remember his reply was quite clear and Rothaug said, they should have dared to pardon Katzenberger.
Q In the former course of your direct examination, you said that the question became acute, too, as to whether in connection with racial pollution, the woman was to be punished. Do you remember that?
A Yes, that has been disputed since 1935, ever since the Race Protection Law existed.
Q I do not doubt your good will, but I must put it to you: In the documents submitted, there is a reference saying that Hitler had expressed the wish that in cases of racial pollution, the woman is not to be punished. And, in that connection the verdict on Seiler seemed to be objected to on that basis. That Rothaug believes too he can remember that your account of the talk with Freisler concerned purely the sentencing of Seiler. And, not the sentencing of Katzenberger. So, that this doubt is probably clear, I should like to ask you again as to whether your memory is definitely serving you well?
A My memory -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) That ground has certainly been well covered and this repetition of the matter that has been thoroughly covered should not be indulged in.
JUDGE BRAND: This witness definitely stated that he had given us his definite recollection. You will have to accept that as an answer because you are merely asking now for a further assurance from him that he remembers correctly. You are wasting our time in this matter.
Q I am now comment to another question. You have mentioned that Rothaug regarded the Eastern people as slaves No. 1, and the others as slaves No. 2. Do you remember a case in which a member of a Western State appeared before Rothaug as a defendant?
A A Dutchman, I remember that a Dutchman -
Q (Interposing) How did Rothaug treat that Dutchman?
A Well, the case of which I am thinking now, it has a peculiar character of its own because the case concerned a man who had been very badly treated in a factory here. He was teased, and he was made contemptuous because of the capitulation, and in that connection the Dutchman became aggressive.
He was arrested and proceedings were instituted against him before the Special Court. His soldierly bearing was appreciated, and he got off with a light prison sentence, I think only a little in excess of his imprisonment pending trial.
Q Did Rothaug treat that man as if he belonged to a nation of slaves?
A No, I said already the soldierly bearing of the man was appreciated.
Q Well, you said that foreigners were sentenced under the Public Enemy Laws.
A From account by the associate judges, who were present at such trials, I heard of two or three cases.
Q Do you remember why the Special Courts came to assume that the Public Enemy Laws were to be applied?
A That was not a case of Public Enemy Laws, but it was the economic world law which was concerned. Production came under paragraph 1 of the Wehrmacht Army Ruling, and concerned persons who were removed under those provisions, and the death sentence was made necessary because whoever the enemy was, it was concerned with the production which was important for food economy.
Q Did the Special Courts have actual guidance on that matter, according to which these foreigners attempted to sabotage the food economy of the German people during the war?
A Just as Rothaug used the information, the material which I have so often mentioned. And, through that, the judges who sat on the bench had to be told about that; that is to say about Hoffmann and Groben, and those who were present. They told me that about the penal, case which was to prevent starving. And, they also told me about another case. I don't remember the name, the case Pirner of Straubing. They said that it had been mentioned that Rothaug had said such matters were not single occurrences, and thus the ground was prepared on which the associate judges should consider, assuming the crime had been a serious crime.
Q From your information of foreign views, do you know that other foreigners were requested to carry out such attempts?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I object for the reason that whether this witness had heard of it or not is not material. He asked the witness whether he knew the foreigners heard of it, and to me, the answer to this question in no ways throws light upon the fact that Rothaug did sentence prisoners to death for injury to animals. I cannot find any connection between this question and the question asked on direct examination, or that it, in any way, tends to discredit the statement of the witness on direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be sustained.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Witness, on what circumstance depended the judgement of the question as to whether a case was less grave than the meaning of the law, or as to whether it was a normal case; or as to whether the case was so-called particularly grave.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I am sorry I have to again object your Honor. I object to that question on the ground that it is so broad and indefinite that the witness can not intelligently answer it; as it is framed it is not directed to any issue that appears here, whether one case, ten cases, or any case were considered more grave or less grave. I fail to see that it is pertinent.
THE PRESIDENT: The opinion of this witness as to what is a grave case and what is not a grave case will not be material to any inquiry before this Tribunal. The objection will be sustained.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, you mentioned a case in which a Roman Catholic priest was supposed to have been criticized because he had buried a Pole according to the Catholic rites; was that the only point which was criticized?
A When the document first arrived from Roding, yes, that is so. The warrant for arrest was issued by Rothaug after that with the reason that the principles of the malicious acts law had been infrinted by a Catholic priest publicly on Sunday afternoon by making it possible for the civilian population to attend and giving burial to a Pole, and in this case the Ministry ordered the prosecution because the Ministry stated -- I personally was pleased, I myself was gratified because I rejected the issuance of the warrant. The Ministry then declared from the subjective point of view that it could not be proved for the priest that he had wished to resist the law concerning Poles and the authority of the State and police, but when the rejection had come from Berlin then, a sermon was dug up; the local police office dug up that sermon and the party officials, and that sermon made it possible to start a prosecution because the sermon had been held before the Pole had been buried.
Q Now, a last question; what was the relations of the members of the Special Court among, with Rothaug, outside their official relations?
A Those relations altogether corresponded to conventional custom, with a respectful observation of the fact that Rothaug was our superior; the person and the matters were kept separate and conditions which arose from official work were limited to official duties, official relations, and therefore, there was no difficulty.
BY DR. SCHILF: (Attorney for Defendants Mettgenberg and Klemm)
Q Your Honor, I only have one question which I was unable to put prior to Dr. Koessl's cross examination, and as a matter of fact only during the cross examination something emerged which I now want to clear up by a question. The subject itself was mentioned by the witness under direct examination. Therefore, I would ask you to permit me to put this question to the witness after Dr. Koessl's cross examination. Witness, I am concerned with a conference which you mentioned and it concerned the fact that at the conference in Jena you met under secretary Freisler. I should like to put to you a question that concerns that conference. You fixed the time at 1938; is that right?
A During the Sudetenland crisis; the end of September or the beginning of October 1938.
Q May I ask you to give us a brief description of the character of that conference?
A The Reich Ministry of Justice, not through Freisler as counsel said, but as far as I remember through Dr. Mettgenberg had asked judges come to a continuation course; lectures were given which were to give a further insight than could be obtained from every day work; a transport law was taught; among other things economic law and fine points of criminal law; criminal psychological lectures were given; for instance Dr. Crone spoke about racial law and racial protection; Under Secretary Freisler spoke about criminal law and juveniles; and two lectures dealt with police work. I not Ministerial Dr. Best from the RSHA who gave an address on the security of living space and nations and another Ministerial counselor from the same ministry spoke on the first attack. The conference was in charge of Dr. Mettgenberg who early in the morning opened the lectures and afterwards closed them.
Q You already said that Dr. Mettgenberg organized the conference; what was your total impression of this conference; was it more of scientific matters; was it scientific continuation course, or did it have a political flavoring.
A The conference as a whole left me with the impression that it had a scientific continuation course; and the two lectures of which I mentioned by the gentlemen from the RSHA had not mot with approval. I actually believe that I can remember remarks during the discussions expressed the fact that all this seems a little alien to us; that these spheres of activity that belonged to the RSHA should be mentioned but that it was only thing of any political flavoring; nothing else was political in any way.
Q But because as a whole it was not a political conference, those two lectures attracted attention; is that so?
A Yes, that was so.
DR. SCHILF: That is all.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If there is no further cross examination, the Prosecution has no re-direct.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further cross examination on the part of any defense counsel? If not, the witness may be excused. (Witness excused)
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, we still have pending this notion, this lost notion, that was made and then for sometime didn't get to the bench. I think we stated we would take it up today, but it is late, and I an rather under the impression that Dr. Kuboschok wanted to be present, and I would like to have it disposed of. However, requests for the examination of witnesses are piling up. Also after the disposition of that motion, I think I want to report on the discussions that I have had with Dr. Schilf and Dr. Brieger on an attempt to work out the translation matter, which I am afraid has failed, but through no fault of either of ourselves. It is rather late and possibly it is fair to say that we may take these up tomorrow morning at the opening of the session, if that meets with the approval of the Tribunal.
DR. SCHILF: Your Honor, concerning the notion which the Prosecutor mentioned just now, we Defense Counsel have made contact among one another and we did so the evening before Easter, and we decided concerning this motion which was submitted in writing, we decided that we too would submit a notion in writing to the Court. This afternoon, after the session, the motion is to be formulated by the Defense Counsel, but one of my colleagues suggested that before we submit the motion to the Court and make it available to the Prosecution, that we should talk to Mr. Leslie who is the expert on American procedure for the Defense Counsel, we, therefore, do not wish to leave out Mr. Leslie, and suggest that the proposal which we have to make and which we are going to discuss again this afternoon, this proposal we wanted to show to him before we submitted it to the Tribunal.
I think it would be a good thing if the two parties would give their views here before the Tribunal, and I think that our written motion, after our discussion with Mr. Leslie, should be available to the Prosecution before we have our joint discussion here. I therefore suggest that we should wait until the prosecution will have it in their hands, and I hope that will be tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: We certainly agree with that. We do not think it should be discussed at this time, because that seems to be a very necessary procedure. Now coming to the translation matter, in order that the Tribunal may have an opportunity to have something to talk over themselves, have you any suggestion to make as to what can be worked out on that, since you have discussed it?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I am not sure that I have. Dr. Schilf is here. Dr. Brieger is not. I had anticipated something that apparently is too elaborate for the mechanical facilities of OCC. I wanted to be completely fair to the defendants and to furnish them with the necessary copies of the document book and the daily transcripts. We might be able to furnish three extra copies of the transcripts, but it is utterly impossible for me to get for this Tribunal or for the use of the defense counsel and this Tribunal three additional copies of the Document Book. I had hoped that we might reduce our various objections to writing, submit them to ourselves, attempt to resolve them, and then submit those that couldn't be resolved to a commissioner. That cannot be worked out. The only solution I know is that as we proceed, defense counsel or the Prosecution in cases where we object to the translation, may come to the microphone and state their objection. Then it will go into the transcript. Perhaps then later on the Tribunal may see fit to appoint, say at the end of the Procecution's case, some one to sit and attempt to work those out as they appear. In that way at least defense counsel will be permitted to state their objections as they occur. As to any objections which defense counsel have had to translations which they have not stated, pending their reliance upon, not my statement that we could work something out, but my desire to work something out, I am sure that Dr. Schilf doesn't feel that I have misled him or been unfair in any way.
As to those, it seems to me that if defense counsel had noted them, the Tribunal might permit them to reduce those to writing and submit them to the Tribunal. I mean, any they had not made pending our hope that we could work them all out together. That is the only solution I can now see.
THE PRESIDENT: Unless there is something further, we will take the recess at this time. Have you any further comment to make, Dr. Schilf?
DR. SCHILF: I should like to say one more word. We have the possibility to examine the translations in a way which had been suggested by the Prosecution if we have one single copy of the English document books and of the English transcripts. During the Easter days we went through several document books and can show the results in a way which has been suggested by the Prosecution. If we have one copy each of the English document books and of the English transcript it would facilitate our work if we could continue. But I will not detain the Court on this point. I will discuss this matter in a friendly way with Mr. LaFollette and then we will made the results known.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. We will take a recess until tomorrow morning at nine-thirty.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 9 April 1947, at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Josef Alstoetter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 9 April 1947; 0930-1630, Justice Carrington T. Marshall presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III. Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you will please ascertain if the defendants are all present.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all the defendants are present in the court room with the exception of defendants Rothaug and Engert who are absent through illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The proper notation will be made.
The Prosecution will proceed.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, the Prosecution calls as its witness one Friedrich Doebig.
(The Marshal summoned the Witness.)
BY JUDGE BLAIR:
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.)
JUDGE BLAIR: You may sit down.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Witness, will you please describe briefly for the Court your name, your education, and your professional positions up to 1945?
A My name is Friedrich Doebig. I am 60 years of age. I am a widower. Up until 1945 I was president of the Senate of the Supreme Court at Leipzig. I live in Nuernberg, Jarkstrasse 10, March 1887 in Noerdlingen. I first attended elementary school and then went to the grammar school at Noerdlingen.
I completed my studies at the Augsburg grade school, where in 1906 I graduated. I studied law at the University Erlangen. There I belonged to a Christian Students Union. I passed my final examination in law in June 1911. And, next, I spent my training period as a lawyer with the authorities at Augsburg. I passed my state examination -- I should have taken my state examination in the autumn of 1914, but the outbreak of the World War prevented me from doing so. In the autumn of 1914, I was called up for service with the armed forces. I took part in the first World War on the Western front. In 1918 I was seriously wounded and until October 1919 I had hospital treatment. In February 1920, I passed my state examination in law -passed it, and made 46, and that means 1. I was appointed to the Public Prosecutor with the District Court at Augsburg, and two years later, during the summer of 1922, I was called to the Bavarian Ministry at Munich. At the Ministry of Justice I made a fast career. On 15 May 1927, following a custom of the Bavarian Ministry of Justice, I became Oberamtsrichter at Sonthofen in the Allgaeu.
On the 1st of December 1930, I was recalled to the Bavarian Ministry of Justice. I have to correct myself, as far as I remember it was already on the 1st of December 1929. On the 1st of June 1930, I was promoted to Oberregierungsrat in the Bavarian Ministry of Justice, and was placed in charge of the Department for Penal Law. On 1 January 1933, I was appointed Ministerialrat in the Bavarian Ministry of Justice. In the course of the centralization of Justice, on 1 April 1935 I was appointed Oberlandesgerichtsrat because I had asked not to be appointed to the Reich Ministry of Justice in Berlin. On 1 July 1945, I was appointed to be Generalstaatsanwalt in the office of Oberlandesgericht, Nurnberg, a position which had fallen vacant at that time. On the 1st of October 1937 I was appointed Oberlandesgerichtspresident in Nurnberg. In the autumn of 1942 the defendant Rothaug and Oeschey started serious intrigues against me. A Visit by the* Under-Secretary, at the time Rothenberger, was the cause for the discussion with the Gauleiter Holz.
That discussion, as Rothenberger told me, took place with a very sharp exchange of words. And, in the course of it Holz politely and repeatedly demanded my recall from Nurnberg. In the summer of 1943 because of the political unreliability, I was duly recalled from my office in Nurnberg, and by being demoted I was transferred to be President of the Senate at the Supreme Reich Court. There I worked until April 1945.
Q Herr Doebig, between 1935 and 1943, when, as you say, you were President of the Provincial Court of Appeals here in Nurnberg, during that time, can you explain what the professional relationship was between you and the judges of the Special Court in Nurnberg?
A When I took over the office of the President of the District Court of Appeals in Nurnberg, the Landesgerichtsdirector, Rothaug, at that time, was already the presiding judge at the Special Court in Nurnberg. Rothaug in the National Socialist Lawyer's League held the office of Gaugruppenwalter for the judges and public prosecutors. The leader of it had administrative authority; that is to say, the Oberlandesgerichtspresident and Generalstaatsanwaelte of the District Court of Appeals of the senior public prosecutors were instructed to keep in close contact with the National Socialist Lawyer's League. That took particular effect in the field of policy toward personnel. Rothaug, for the Gauleiter -- if the Ministry asked for political assessments of judges and public prosecutors, had to give political assessments of judges and public prosecutors.
Q One moment, please; one moment, please, Herr Doebig. Would you please explain who had the appointive power over judges of the special court, and what your relation was to the appointment and control or discipline of special court judges?
A The appointment of the members of the special courts was made by the president of the district court of appeals. As I have stated before, Rothaug, at the time when I assumed office, was already the presiding judge of the special court. The associate judges changed frequently. In the course of the year it became more and more difficult to find associate judges for the Nurnberg special court. Voluntary applications were very rare. I only remember two judges who, with the aim in view of finding work at the special court, were called to the district court at Nurnberg. They were Landgerichtsrat Maier, who was a member of the SS, and Landgerichtsrat Oeschey, who was an old member of the Party.
Q One moment, please, Herr Doebig. In an affidavit which you executed some time age -- which, by the way, if the Court please, has already been introduced into evidence as Exhibit 237 -- in that affidavit, Herr Doebig, you stated that in 1942 you began to attempt the removal of Oswald Rothaug from the special court in Nurnberg. Why did you attempt to do that?
A That is a mistake, in so far as it was not in 1942 that I began to try to achieve Rothaug's removal from the special court. In that I am wrong. I began, in 1938, to make serious efforts to remove Rothaug from the special court at Nurnberg and to achieve his transfer. What appointment Rothaug was to be given I did not mind at all. In particular, I made no efforts to get Rothaug transferred to the East, but I considered Rothaug's continued activity with the Nurnberg special court to be untenable. I could not combine it with my conscience that Rothaug whose uncontrolled behavior while presiding over court was generally known, and whose too severe sentences were frequently not compatible with the sound sentiments of the law -- should continue to be active at the special court at Nurnberg.
I can remember clearly that I used a discussion with the Minister of Justice at the time, Dr. Guertner, as my first opportunity to work for a transfer of Rothaug, At that time I pointed out to Dr. Guertner how indignant one felt about the fact that Rothaug, as the presiding judge of the special court in the well-known trial of the two clergymen, Schmitt and Fasel, said to the defendant Fasel, when after the examination of a witness he again asked to be allowed to speak -- Rothaug barked at the defendant in the most objectionable manner and said, "You disgusting Priest, keep your mouth shut." At that time I myself was present in the courtroom and was able to observe that the audience was filled with indignation.
Q Herr Doebig, we know that in 1943 Oswald Rothaug was transferred to the Reich prosecution at the People's Court in Berlin. Did you, at that time, learn from any official sources why Rothaug was so promoted to Berlin?
A In January of 1943 the Reich Minister of Justice, Thierack, made a visit to the Nurnberg Administration of Justice. In the evening he gave an address at the Cultural League in Nurnberg, and afterwards a party took place at the Deutscher Hof. As I knew that my position in Nurnberg was shaky and that I had lost the confidence of the Gau leaders, I had asked Thierack to excuse me from taking part in the party. Thierack refused and said, "You must do your duty to the last as Oberlandesgerichtepresident in Nurnberg." Therefore, I had to go to the party at the Deutscher Hof, and there I witnessed most disgusting scenes.
First of all, I may say that it was very striking to see the favorite treatment which Rothaug enjoyed that evening. He was seated at the side of Thierack, and during the evening engaged in lively conversations with Thierack.
This meeting developed into a drinking bout. I am convinced that that evening the promotion of Rothaug to be Reich Prosecutor at the People's Court was discussed.
Rothaug, next morning, at about five or six, completely drunk, had collapsed and had to be carried off.
Minister Thierack had fixed a reception for nine o'clock that morning for the authorities in the Palace of Justice, in the course of which the heads of the Oberlandesgericht Nurnberg were to be introduced to him. Thierack, on account of the drunkenness from which he suffered in the morning, was more than an hour late when he finally arrived at the Palace of Justice. He told me that when he took his bath at the Deutscher Hof he had nearly drowned himself. He never gave any indication to me that Rothaug was to be promoted to Reich Public Prosecutor, but it soon became known that that evening Rothaug's promotion had been decided.
Q Herr Doebig, in so far as you observed them, before you left Nurnberg for Leipzig, what were the professional and personal relations between Rothaug and Rudolf Oeschey?
AAs far as I was able to observe, the relations between Rothaug and Oeschey until 1943 -- that is to say, until I left Nurnberg -- were very good. Later on I heard, but I could not make observations of my own, that these relations were worsened later on. At any rate, I know that Oeschey became Gaurechtsamtsleiter, the legal head of the Gau. I believe that was in 1938.
Q Herr Doebig, may I interrupt a moment, please? We are familiar with most of the professional background of Oeschey and Rothaug. The question was, in so far as you observed it, how they got on together, both on the bench and personally. And you have just stated that up until 1943, at least, so far as you observed it, it was good. Then you said that some time after that this relationship worsened. I am wondering how you know that, and if you know the reason.
Q I mentioned that during my appointment in Nurnberg I myself had the impression that Rothaug and Oeschey worked in close cooperation. In my own mind I was always convinced that Rothaug was the moving spirit in the intrigue against me, and Oeschey merely carried out what Rothaug wanted him to do.
The person in charge of personnel matters in my office, Schmitt, and Ministerialrat Dr. Miethsam, at the Reich Ministry of Justice, informed me that Rothaug first wanted to obtain the position of Oberlandesgerichtspraesident in Nurnberg, and, on the other hand, Oeschey "wanted to become the Senatspraesident of the Oberlandesgericht at the District Court of Appeal. Why those two, Rothaug and Oeschey, in the subsequent period, no longer got on with each other as well as before, I do not know. I suppose