Court No. 3, Commission III here it says "me" -- "that the fact that Polish witnesses could not be sworn in caused constant difficulties."
Thus you mention "your judges in Warsaw and Cracow."
A. Yes -- not my judges ... they were judges of Luftgaukommando Posen. There were so-called judges' discussions, deliberations of the supervisory district. And to the supervisory district... Berlin belonged also to the Luftgaukommando Posen and East Prussia. And at these lectures at the time there were complaints voiced that the judges did not know how they should act in taking the witnesses under oath.
Q. But the causes which gave rise to those individual cases you can not state any more today?
A. No, they were general conferences of judges.
Q. Thus you also cannot state just whether they were laws of the government general or laws of the Reich Ministry of Justice for the incorporated territories?
A. No, I can't say that.
Q. Further on you speak of the SS and Police Courts which came into the foreground in Poland after the campaign in France. That is about fifteen lines after the sentence which we have just discussed.. about the middle of page 3, lower third of page 3 in the English copy... just before the end of this last paragraph. Do you know that tho SS and Police Courts were not under the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A. However, they had absolutely their own official channels. And as far as I know they had nothing to do with the Ministry of Justice.
Q. Then in the next part you again mention Special Courts. Do you mean the SS and Police Courts in that sense?
A. Yes, in general we had no insight -- we could not see how the construction in the Ministry of Justice went on since 1933. In 1939, when Poland was conquered, there were some decrees about Special Courts. How they developed later on we were not interested in that at all because our sector was sharply limited to members of the Armed forces.
Q. May I draw a conclusion from what we have just discussed -please correct me if I make a mistake -- to the effect that everything Court No. 3, Commission III.
which you have said in this affidavit about Special Courts, about general courts -- that is, civil courts -- that you know that more or less only from hearsay -- without, in your official capacity or otherwise, having really no insight into the conditions?
A. No, that is going a little bit too far.
MR. KING: One moment, please. The objection may not be timely at this moment because the witness has already partially answered it. But I think the question was altogether too general because, as Dr. Schilf stated, everything the witness said about military and other special courts -- well, of course, that covers a lot pf territory and I think if he is going to get the witness's conclusion on this he had better refer to the sentence in the paragraph so that we will know for sure what he is asking. As it is I do not know.
JUDGE BRAND: The witness answered the question by saying that the question went too far. And the witness may explain his answer further if he desires. The objection is overruled.
A. My entire impression I, of course, formed on the basis of the reports of my subordinate judges who came in touch with these borderline territories and it was an opinion which was also shared by my chief judge, that was Generaloberst Richter, who agreed that it was not right to treat the civilian population too severely. In certain circles of the military leadership there was a difference of opinion with the civilian administration regarding the guidance and direction of the civilian population, and it is expressed by this that the civilian population, as we frequently find in occupied territories, has more trust in the occupying army than in the civilian administration which takes over afterwards.
Q. This is an opinion in regard to the civilian administration -but what we are discussing here is the Reich Ministry Justice. Would you, perhaps, by civilian administration would you want to include any sphere of the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A. No, To what extent the Reich Ministry of Justice was guiding Court No. 3, Commission III.
that I don't know. I can not give any information about that at all.
Q. You said that; all right.
A. I can only say what the effects of individual functions were there -- that they did not gain the confidence --
Q. You mean the civilian administration?
A. Yes, civilian administration; you separate civilian administration and administration of justice. I am going further. I am saying the administration of justice -- the entire administration.
Q. In your affidavit, however, it says, expressly, in the paragraph about Poland which begins, "In Poland..." in the middle of the second page... some few lines below the beginning of the paragraph -I quote: "The civilian population came under the jurisdiction of Special Courts of the Ministry of Justice."
A. No, that is not supposed to mean that I want to say why I know they were subordinate to the Ministry of Justice, but the civilian population was subordinate to civilian courts; whether they were civilian courts or courts of the government general, I don't know.
Q. Well, that clarifies it. You only have to state clearly to the Court now that you do not want to maintain this particular sentence any more.
A. Would you please read it again?
Q. Thus "The civilian population came under the jurisdiction of the Special Courts."
A. Now, precisely, the civilian population came under the jurisdiction of civilian courts which were there established by the Reich government. That is exactly it. What, now, in the Reich government was the executive organ -- whether that was immediately the Reich Ministry of Justice or whether somebody else in the Cabinet of the Reich intervened, I don't know; after everything that I heard today, by God, I don't know it any more!
Q. I now come to the second point in the affidavit which we have already touched upon recently --
Court No. 3, Commission III.
JUDGE BRAND: Dr. Schilf, the time has come for recessing until tomorrow morning at nine-thirty. The witness will present himself again for further examination at nine-thirty tomorrow morning. The will recess now until that hour.
(The Commission adjourned until 0930 hours, 5 June 1947)
Commission 3 Official Transcript of the Commission of American MilitaryTribunal III in the matter of the United States of America against Josef Alstoetter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 5 June 1947, 0930-1630, The Honorable James T. Brand presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Honorable, the Commissioners of Military Tribunal III. The Commission is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Commission. There will be order in the courts.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you please ascertain if all of the defendants are present?
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom will the exception of the defendant Engert, who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Engert has been excused, The proper notation of the fact will be made.
You may proceed with the cross examination.
MANFRED ROEDER - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. With the permission of the Commission, I continue the cross examination.
Witness, last night we stopped at the sentence, "The civilian population was subordinated to special courts of the Ministry of Justice." Those are the words you used in your affidavit. Yesterday you formulated it differently. I assume that you again have the photostatic copy of your affidavit in front of you?
A. I did not receive it.
Q. I gave it to you last night.
A. The photostatic copy was again taken away from me.
Q. I regret it very much because the photostatic copy belongs to Mr. King. I ask Mr. King's pardon, and I shall see to it that you again receive the photostatic copy.
You had pronounced a correction, and you stated that it was the Commission 3 laws of the Reich Government.
Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. But now you were speaking about Poland, particularly about the difference between the so-called incorporated eastern territories and those geographical areas which were subordinated to the Government General. Now I want to ask you whether the Governor General was subordinate to the Reich Government or whether it was an agency which had its own authority to issue laws.
A. I cannot answer that question because I, in my official position, did not have to concern myself with those matters so that by the words "Reich Government" I only wanted to express that some higher or competent authority issued the laws. I want to say quite in general that I do not have specific knowledge about the organization in occupied Poland because we did not have to concern ourselves with those matters because we only had the jurisdiction of the troops where such questions of constitutional law did not have to be considered.
Q. In your affidavit you said furthermore that a number of exactly described political delicts apparently by your office had to be reported to the Ministry of Justice, and you then say, and I quote, "The Ministry of Justice then decided which cases were to be sentenced by the People's Court." I want to ask you whether these occurrences which you mention here refer only to cases before the People's Court or whether you mean to say by that statement that on the basis of legal regulations, cases of general administration of justice, that is, in contrast to military administration of justice, in other words, had been turned over to the civilian administration of justice.
A. Matters were as follows: Only at the end of the war did they make their effect felt. After the 20th of July we received the directive that the military courts in regard to certain political delicts, that is, malicious attacks against the State and the Party, as far as I know, furthermore, incidents which occurred in connection with the 20th of July, were to be transferred to our superior authority, that is, by our Reich Commission 3 Air Ministry to the Reich Ministry of Justice, and that the people were to be turned over to the Reich.
For us, this was extraordinarily difficult because at that time we were in Rumania or in Hungary, where the conditions of transportation were terribly difficult, and it was not always enough that the defendant was turned over, but for the clarification of the case it was also necessary that the witnesses and the evidence material be turned over. Due to all of those difficulties, two or three cases in my official sphere were turned over to the Reich according to this directive, as far as I know, over to Vienna. But a final decision as to where the Reich Ministry of Justice did transfer it, whether it went to the People's Court or to the Local Court in Vienna or Berlin, that we were not informed about any longer, because due to all this red tape and the long official channel through which it had to go: the judge, the Chief Judge, the Reich Air Ministry, the Ministry of Justice - this took so many months that practically it did not come into effect until the end of the war.
Q. Dr. Roeder, you were talking about a directive. Can you tell us what office issued it?
A. We received this directive from the Reich Air Ministry and a decree of the Legal Division of the Air Ministry, that according to the decree of that and that date, the following matters were to be turned over. I believe, if I am not mistaken, there were even seven copies that were received. It was almost impossible to produce these seven copies in the front courts because we did not have enough office material and personnel.
Q. Dr. Roeder, did this directive from your superior authority, if you remember it, that is the Reich Air Ministry, can you remember whether they referred to a directive of the Fuehrer?
A. I cannot tell you that any more.
Q. Or whether they referred to the Special Wartime Penal Regulation?
A. No, I do not know that, in order to make such precise statements. I ask you to regard my testimony only as a conversation which I had rather Commission 3 than a legally correct definition of all the authorities.
Today I cannot state that any more.
Q. Dr. Roeder, did you ever have to do with "Night and Fog" matters as chief judge in any other official activity in your sphere?
A. No. As I had already mentioned in the west, I was only considering the campaign in France, and then I was used within Germany and after that in the east where the Night and Fog decree did not apply. As far as the Night and Fog decree is concerned and about the fact that it was issued, I heard extensively about that only after I was a prisoner of war.
Q. With that, I have concluded my factual questions. Dr. Roeder, I only want to give you the opportunity now, after I could last night give you the photostatic copy of your affidavit, to make further corrections if you yourself desire to do so on your own. You told us that the formulation of the affidavit which was submitted to you was not dictated in your presence and that you only corrected the most flagrant errors in handwriting but that you were short of time. You said it was shortly before the noon meal. If you noticed anything else which could not be clarified by me Questions, you now have the opportunity to make the corresponding corrections.
A. In order to summarize the matter in a few words, the lack in the record is--
Q. Excuse me. When you speak of "record", you mean your affidavit?
A. Yes, the affidavit. The deficiency lies in the fact that when it was taken down, end during the interrogation, they did not ask me sufficiently about the reasons. Our personal attitude was that the civil administration of justice is more severe. The question would have been at hand why. The east brought with it quite special conditions and we in the east heard that too late. For us as German judges it was absolutely incomprehensible that there were still territories in Europe where, for example, there were robberies and tribes who robbed, that the administration of justice had to take a different attitude in the east.
Commission 3 That, in my opinion, was not brought out sufficiently in the discussions which led to this affidavit.
That would be something that I would have liked to add. The interrogator cut me off then. I had really expected that it would last longer -that the interrogation would last longer. My attitude during the entire interrogation was that I expected to be interrogated about the Military Administration of Justice, because at the very beginning I told my interrogator I cannot give authentic information about Civil Administration of Justice, because I already left it twelve years ago; and to what extent the differences between Military Administration of Justice and Civil Administration of Justice in its entire construction and in its essence, I hardly have to explain to the expert Court. Perhaps the interrogator did not realize that quite, because otherwise he might perhaps have extended his questioning somewhat.
Q. All right; do you have anything further to say?
A. No, I do not at the moment.
Q. Now, a purely technical problem. I am aghast that I cannot return the copy of the photostat, the photostatic copy to Mr. King, the representative of the Prosecution. Can you still tell me to whom you gave the photostatic copy?
A. Yes, Yesterday after the examination a gentleman in uniform, here in the courtroom, took it from me.
DR. SCHILF: Thank you. May it please the Commission, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further cross examination? Apparently not. Is there any re-direct examination?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KING:
Q. Dr. Roeder, first I would like to ask in connection with the affidavit that you signed, if in addition to what you have just told Defense Counsel about the detail into which you did not go because you thought you were going to be interrogated about military court matters, while, in fact it turned out to be an interrogation on civil matters, that you did not go into sufficient details.
May I ask you, are there any other corrections of the transcript -- I mean of the affidafit -- which you want to make at this time in addition to the two specific sentences which you changed yesterday and this morning?
A. Unfortunately, I only had the affidavit yesterday for a short period. If special value is attached to every single word, for example, the question is the special court of the Ministry of Justice -- which I meant as a general term -- special courts let us say in the civil sector, then I would have to examine that as to whether in regard to one or the other point. I can say today with certainty that this was at a certain time this way and at another period it was this way. Please, Mr. Prosecutor, I ask you to consider that I only got a insight into the Polish-conditions during the first establishment of the special court; I want to express that quite generally, when they first infiltrated into the Polish area, which at this time was still exclusively military, under military administration, that is the period from September, 1939, on: from then on, the Polish area in regard to administrative matters, that is the administration and structure of the administration of Justice, I did not get any insight into any more. Then, during 1940 I did not know anything about it because I was in the west. In 1941 and 1942 the following questions occurred to me -- the Reich German district as in connection with the Polish district, in regard to the examination of witnesses; now, the question of taking an oath from a Polish witness and trials against the citizens of the German Reich occurred; that was in connection with some difficulties per se, and that should not be so. Those were the points of view. Then, secondly, the question why did Poland urge Poles who had gone with German soldiers and committed crimes, why did they urge that they too should be sentenced by military courts immediately, and that the trial should not be separated insofar as they were concerned and turned over to civil courts; that the judges would in their spheres of the district -- at that time I was not in a job of supervising, but a deputy; that the judges again and again reported that the civilians wanted to be sentenced by the military because they thought in the military courts they would be treated better; that they would get away with a lighter penalty.
Those are the points of view of which I wanted put down in the affidavit. Then, there is a third phase, when I again got an insight into the Polish conditions, when I was with the chief judge with the Fourth Air Force and the judges of the Tenth Flak Division of the Air Fighter Corps, and as far as I know also the Ninth Falk Division, Antiaircraft Division; these were in the Polish area. I purposely mean by polish area the former Polish State because for us, it was of no interest whether the General Government -whether it was a General Government or the incorporated territory; we were not interested whether Frank was in charge here or whether the German office governed it; that wasn't of interest to us. From that point of view, I ask you to look at my entire statement, my basic atti tude, that these sentences of the courts in the civil sector were more severe than those in the military sector I maintain still; I adhere to that since we were severe in the military courts when discipline was concerned, but on the whole we could issue lenient sentences because we knew, we frequently knew the men for years, and could certify that the man on the whole was all right, and that played an important role. Therefore, the differences in regard to the extent of the penalty in the civil sector resulted. In addition, the law left a large scope to the discretion of the judge who on the basis of his own discretion, and considering all the outside conditions, has to find the extent of the penalty; and I don't know to what extent the tendencies had to be presented, that is the deterring theory or the retribution theory when the penalty was considered; that is the question the judge had to decide.
Q. Dr. Roerder, I don't wish to cut you short from any explanation you wish to make; however, it might be a more orderly procedure if I ask you several additional questions and perhaps in answering them you can say all that you had intended to say without the questions.
May we proceed in this way. I refer now to your affidavit, particularly to the section in which you say, and I will quote: "We received", -this relates to the treatment by the Gestapo of certain prisoners which were taken under apprehension by the Gestapo. You say: "We received no support from the Ministry of Justice. In many cases, if it had merely tried to exercise the necessary influence, the Ministry would have been able to free many people from Gestapo custody." Then you go on to say Dr. Schlegelberger was a man who wavered first to one side and then to the other. Yesterday I was not quite clear in my own mind as to what extent you thought that that sentence did not reflect your feelings in the matter. Now, I think your affidavit introduces the subject of the Gestapo through the case of Schwarz, which you at the moment undoubtedly recall.
A. Yes.
Q. Let me ask you, you wore instrumental were you not, in getting Schwarz released from the Gestapo so that he could be tried by the military courts with which you were connected, and, as a result of the trial of Schwarz by the military courts he was acquitted. Now, in connection with the case Schwarz, first, do you still believe that you received no cooperation from the Ministry of Justice in getting Schwarz released from the Gestapo in order that the military court could try him?
A. The matter was as follows: We got Schwarz away from the Gestapo because we were of the opinion that the Gestapo had no right to apprehend a member of the Luftwaffe; this was an interference into a purely military sphere; this question was brought up to Reichsmarshall Goering for decision, and an agreement was reached between Goering, and as far as I know, at the time with Heydrich of the Gestapo, in which the Gestapo obligated itself in the future to hand over every imprisoned member of the Luftwaffe immediately to the Luftwaffe.
In the case against Schwarz, there was a member of the propaganda ministry, whose name I do not remember any more; he was a large man with one eye; I don't remember his name anymore.
COMMISSION III CASE III He had without doubt, because of some personal hatred, made these denunciations about Schwarz which led to his imprisonment, and the files were then submitted to the Reich Ministry of Justice in order to clarify the basic question thereto.
I know that my then highest reviewing judge, military reviewing judge, was anxious to make this a precedent case in order once for all to determine the competency between the Gestapo and the Justice, the Department of Justice, Military Justice, and that the Ministry of Justice in this matter later no longer indicated -- never said anything about it; whether there was any discussion about it, I do not know. In any case the legal division later on did not succeed in bringing the matter to such a point that the competences were clarified once for all.
Q But, in the case Schwarz, you first tried to get cooperation from the Ministry of Justice in getting the Gestapo to release him; is that correct? Make you answer to that question very brief, please.
A No, that was not necessary but rather we appealed to the Under-secretary Milch at the time, and Reichsmarshall Hermann Goering, and under the pressure of those conditions Schwartz was released from the Gestapo. But, now it was a question of the basic clarification on principle that the Ministry of Justice should also cake part in this and that is why we brought the matter up to them, and later we did not hear anything more about it.
Q Then, so far as the case Schwartz is concerned, you feeling, your position, is that the Ministry of Justice should have and could have exerted influence to remove, at least, the man Schwartz from the Gestapo custody, but did not do so; is that correct?
A Well, we had the feeling that we, as independent judges, we did not like an intervention by the police and it was our effort to maintain the independence of the judges and to put the Gestapo, to restrict the Gestapo again as an aid to the ---
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) Mr. Witness, just a minute. Will you attempt to confine your answers to the question put to you. Now, let COMMISSION III CASE III me ask you one simple question:
So far as you know, did the Ministry of Justice take any action either way with reference to the Schwartz case?
THE WITNESS, ROEDER: No, not as far as I know.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the answer reduced to its lowest terms.
BY MR. KING:
Q Would you say in your experience that there were other cases, would you say in support of what you said in your affidavit, that there were other cases in which the Ministry of Justice took no action to release prisoners apprehended by and in custody of the Gestapo? Will you answer that, yes or no, please?
A No, I could not say that because I do not know whether these cases which I am referring to went up as far as the Ministry of Justice. The matter was as follows: If the people were in concentration camps it was very difficult for them to reach an ordinary court. The Gestapo was between them and the courts, for us it was to that extent possible sometimes from the military sector, especially during the war we had -- well, let us say a much stronger position when matters of importance to the war effort were brought up. If people were put into the concentration camps-
Q (Interposing) You say it was very difficult for people in concentration camps, presumably put and held there by the Gestapo, to reach the regular courts. Now, why was it difficult for those people to reach the regular courts; can you answer that briefly?
A Well, in my opinion, because the correspondent alone had to go via the competent office. I do not know whether it was the RSHA AMT IV or AMT III. Please do not ask me to state the exact office. In any case the correspondence went from the concentration camp by the RSHA or the Gestapo in general, and it was shown now that there was no certainty that this now went to the court, that it was handed on to the court.
AAlright, may we turn now to an additional part of your affidavit about which some controversy arose yesterday. I refer to this sentence COMMISSION III CASE III which I believe you corrected, the sentence is:
"The civilian population came under the jurisdiction of the Special Court of the Ministry of Justice." That is the way the sentence appears in the affidavit. Yesterday you submitted certain corrections which I think you said or at least implied were not an accurate reflection of what you had said in your interrogation?
A Yes.
Q I, last evening, availed myself of the opportunity to get the transcript of the interrogation of you which was held on the 15th of January 1947, and I would like to read to you which provoked the question, the answer, the answer which I have just read.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Court, I object to that. The witness will have parts read to him from an internal interrogation by the Prosecution, statements which do not appear in his affidavit. Yesterday and this morning, at considerable length we discussed with the witness that the things which he says in the witness stand will be the final statements which he is ready to state under oath. We cannot now refer back to internal interrogation transcripts of the Prosecution.
THE WITNESS ROEDER: I have no misgivings to answer the questions of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. King, I take it that you want to ask the witness if, on a certain occasion, he made certain statements, which you may claim to have been inconsistent with his testimony yesterday.
MR. KING: That is a part -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) You may do that and we will consider the objection, as made, to the question which you will now ask, and which has not yet been asked. Without preliminaries, just ask him the question what he said on a previous occasion.
Q Can you tell me, Dr. Roeder, what the answer was you gave to the interrogator who interrogated you --
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) Mr. King, ask him if in answer to a specified interrogation he made a specific answer, and state it to him.
COMMISSION III CASE III
Q On the 15th of January 1947, you were interrogated by one of the interrogators for the OCC Staff. The question which was asked concerned the organization of the court system in the occupied Eastern Territories. Now, you answer was in two or three parts because there were interruptions, but the interrogator, perhaps you recall these words, the interrogator says -- you made a statement and the interrogator said: "Perhaps we may have this in a chronological order?" Now, do you recall making this answer at that point: "It was chronologically this way: that first of all, Special Courts were set up by the Ministry of Justice for the civilian occupation in Poland." Do you recall having given that answer as part of a larger answer to the question of how the organization of the court system in Poland was established and operated?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Schilf's objection to that question is overruled and the witness may answer.
A Correct, I gave the answer, that in Poland --
THR PRESIDENT: All right, ask another question.
Q Do you recall this question the interrogator asked you: "Such cases which did happen, that the Ministry of Justice ...." Excuse me one moment. There has been a word left out of here--" In such cases which did happen that the Ministry of Justice, the Poles were better treated." This is not a very good translation. Apparently, now, your answer to that question is this -- I ask you if you recall it -- the answer was that -- it was this way: "First, that the military courts were more popular under the civilian population than the Special Courts; they were more objective. Second, the soldier forgets much quicker than the politician, and the soldier does not know any hatred and he does his job quickly and objectively. And the soldier admits certain motives differently then the civilian." Do you recall that answer?
COMMISSION III CASE III
A Yes, I gave that answer, and I still maintain it today; I stick by it, and I add to my statement that the soldier gets over things much quicker than the politician who judges according to quite different points of view. The soldier judges for a short period of time - the politician has to work with a long point in sight.
Q Now, do you further recall this answer to that question: "I can only say that the civilian population disliked the Special Courts very much. They were more afraid of the Special Courts than the military courts. Among the military judges the cooperation was so that they agreed with the politicians." Now, do you recall that answer?
A Correct. Yes. That is correct, too.
Q In other words -- we come now to a larger question -- In other words in the instances to which I have referred the statements made by you to the interrogator are accurately reflected in the affidavit which you had an opportunity to read and later signed? Is that correct?
A Yes, they are stated correctly but not quite completely. It would have given a right picture if -- may I state briefly -- if by it it had been expressed that as in every country there is a difference between the conception of a military government and a later civilian government which is set up... and I believe that this difference exists also right now in the American military and civilian government, and the British military and --
MR. KING: I believe you are going a little too fast for the translator.
JUDGE BRAND: Ask him another question.
MR. KING: I have no further questions, your Honor.
JUDGE BRAND: The witness is excused.
(Witness was excused)
JOSEF MAYER, a witness took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE HARDING: Hold up your right hand and repeat after me: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure COMMISSION III CASE III truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE HARDING: You may be seated.
DR. SCHUBERT: (for the defendant Oeschey): May it please the Commission, we are concerned with the affidavit of the witness Dr. Josef Mayer in Document Book 3-I, the Document NG-662, Exhibit No. 226.
JUDGE BRAND: Go ahead.
EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q Dr. Mayer, please tell the Court first of all your name and your profession.
A Mayer, my family name; Josef, my first name. Formerly Amtsgerichtsrat -- local court counsellor, Nurnberg.
Q Dr. Mayer, for some time you were working as prosecutor at the Special Court of Nurnberg, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Would you please tell us during what period this happened?
A It was from April 1943 until the end of the war.
Q On this occasion you also met the defendant Oeschey as presiding judge of the Special Court?
A Yes.
Q Did you participate in many sessions with Oeschey as a representative of the prosecution?
A That differed from time to time. As far as I remember Oeschey came to the Special Court in 1943 as presiding judge. Until the spring of 1944 I regularly took part in the sessions of Oeschey as prosecutor, according to the usual rotation. In the spring of 1944 I was suffering from bleedings of the stomach which continued until the summer of 1944, and in August 1944 I returned to the prosecutors' office. From that time on I took part in the sessions of Oeschey to a lesser extent than the other prosecutors.