We hope that an interlude between today and Friday will permit us to proceed in an orderly manner to finish tho prosecation's case during tho week of May 12th.
I don't like to make a firm commitment, but I will say to the Court that in the absence of unexpected witnesses, or the discovery of documents which we do not know anything about, now, we can see the last witnesses that we want to call and all of the documentation that we wish to offer, and that I believe can be completed by the end of the week of May 12th. Finding myself in this position now, I must ask the Court, I move the Court respectfully -- and with a good deal of regret -- to recess until Friday morning.
THE PRESIDENT: There seems to be nothing to do except to grant this motion for a little recess until next Friday morning; but it now clearly appears to everybody -- and, therefore, it must clearly appear to defense Counsel -- that the Prosecution has almost reached the end of their case in chief. It seems that at has always been customary and proper that there should be a short intermission after the Prosecution closes its case to permit the defense to become organized and to start their defense; but inasmuch as we have already had some recesses up to this time, and are now facing a longer recess, we hope that defense Counsel will philosophically take that into account so that the interim, between the time that the Prosecution actually closes its case until the Defense can organize and be ready for the beginning of the defense, may be relatively shortened. Just how much that should be shortened, of course, is difficult to say at this time, but we trust that these recesses may be taken into consideration and that a reasonably period may be shortened by the same number of days. In other words, they are asked to start their preparation now. I can see no reason why they cannot. We hope they have already started it, because the Prosecution is certainly almost at the end of their case. we know no more about that than the defense Counsel definitely, but from the statement made by the Prosecution, it is apparent that there is not much more to rebut.
DR. KUBUSCHOK (Attorney for Defendants Schlegelberger and von Ammon):
May it please the Court, on this occasion I should like to present one question. Affidavits have been submitted on the part of the Prosecution where the necessity arose to cross examine, to subject to cross examination the authors of these affidavits. These witnesses who will appear referred to the presentation of evidence by the Prosecution. It should be considered a systematical ray that these cross examinations should take place immediately after the presentation of evidence by the prosecution. I ask, therefore, for a. statement of the opinion of the Tribunal so that, if possible, we should be in a position today already to submit the names of those affiants whom we would like to have called for cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: We might inquire at this time, in view of that request, which seems a very reasonable and a. very orderly ray cf doing the matter, we might inquire whether the Prosecution could bring such witnesses in as they may desire to cross examine and have that out of the ray this week -- such witnesses as the Defense might desire to cross examine.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If your Honors please, that is one of the reasons; that curing these three days that I have been forced to ask for a recess, it may be that if there are witnesses, within the immediate range ox Nurnberg, who have given affidavits and who have not been cross examined on them, that we can get them in here, but the machinery of getting witnesses, particularly the machinery involving transportation, where the witnesses don't -- although they arc voluntary -don't choose to come by rail is one of the matters which has made me ask for this delay. This court, of course, is not too concerned with explanations or excuses, but I think a carefully worded conservative statement is proper so that all may be advised. The obtaining of witnesses for O.C.C. is furnished to O.C.C. by that part of the army which is called a supporting part of the army.
I can't give the unit numbers; there are offices within O.C.C. which request witnesses, but the transportation is not within the control of operated by O.C.C. Therefore, we must then request that transportation be furnished. I do know that presently we are using two pieces of transportation which were obtained as a result of -- let us say -- personal negotiations; there arc other units trying cases who also want to bring in witnesses. I do not believe that we can gain any tame this week by bringing in such affiants. I think first, as a matter of fact, that it would be well for both of us -- both sides -- to review the affidavits which have been presented by the Prosecution where the affiant has not been produced for cross examination. If are can produce any of those within a short time we would do so, but there is only today and tomorrow, Thursday is a holiday; so that while I can certainly understand from Dr. Kuboschok's position that it would appear to be orderly, I think the Court will understand -- and I hope the Defense Counsel will understand -- from what I have said that it is not a practical solution to use the balance of this rock.
JUDGE BRAND: Don't you agree, however, that at least immediately after the Prosecution has finished its case in chief, this cross examination of Prosecution affiants should take place before the Defense calls their own witnesses?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I think it would be much more orderly, your Honor; I am certainly in agreement with that, and during this time we will try to make a list of those affiants who have not been cross
JUDGE BRAND: I think the Defense should follow the suggestion made and give you a list -
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Of those they want.
JUDGE BRAND: In accordance with the rules that arc demanded for the presentation of these affiants for cross examination.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Exactly, and if they will do that at the earliest possible date, so that the meager transportation that is available can be better utilized, because there arc other courts operating and we must compete with them. Do that if by tomorrow possible, certainly not later than Friday, and prefer ably tomorrow possible, certainly not later than Friday, and preferably tomorrow evening; I agree that that is a more orderly process, and we will try to get the bodies in here, the individuals in here.
THE PRESIDENT: The first action must proceed from the defense Counsel; they are the ones who are interested in the cross examination, and I think they should furnish a list of those affiants whom they desire to cross examine at the earliest possible date; may be they are ready now; are you ready now to submit that list to the Prosecution of the affiants that Defense Counsel desire to cross examine? You can answer that by the nod of your head without going to the podium.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: In the course of the day we shall submit the list to the Prosecution in writing.
THE PRESIDENT: That seem to be the best that can be done, but any how, let's have those as promptly as possible so that the Prosecution's final closing need not be delayed by reason of this list being delayed. We will, therefore, recess at this time until Friday morning, 9:30.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 9 May 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 May 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Carrington T. Marshall, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom 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 courtroom with the exception of the defendant Engert, who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The absence of the defendant Engert is with the permission of the Tribunal. Let the Secretary General see that the proper notation is made.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The Prosecution calls the witness Schosser.
LUITPOLD SCHOSSER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BLAIR: Hold up your right hand and be sworn, please. Repeat after me the following oath:
I swear by God, 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 be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Witness, would you please state your full name and your profession?
A My name is Luitpold Schosser; I am a Catholic priest.
Q Father, where is your parish?
A My present parish is at Wolffsegg, near Regensburg.
Q Has that been your parish for some tine in the past?
A That has been my parish for three years and three months.
Q Where was your parish before that?
A Before my trial, my parish was at Filsegg.
Q Father, where were you born, and when?
A I was born on the 28th of April, 1909 at Bernhausen, in the Holledau.
Q What education did you have, and where was it?
A For four years I attended grammar school in my own hone village, Hadersbach. Then, for nine years I wont to tho high school at Straubing. Then, for five years I attended the university at Innsbruck, and for one year the Theological Seminary at Regensborg. In 1934 I was consecrated priest. Then I was assistant vicar in several places. At the end I was at Filsegg. Then my trial started and after my trial, from the 1st of February 1944, I have been a priest at Wolffsegg.
Q Father, while you were a priest at Filsegg, were you ever arrested and imprisoned?
AAt Filsegg I was arrested twice, and at Regensberg I was arrested once, because after my arrest I was not allowed to go back to Filsegg.
Q Would you please state the dates, so far as you remember, of each time that you were arrested and imprisoned?
A Yes. For the first time I was arrested on the 1st of June, 1942, and I was kept in prison for fourteen days by the police. That warrant was filled in by the Gestapo. After I had been imprisoned for two weeks, I was released. In the meantime, a second warrant for my arrest was issued by the Special Court of Nurnberg, and on the 1st of July I was arrested again. Then, until the 21st of August -
that is, for seven weeks--I was in custody pending trial at Weiden, in the District Court prison of Weiden. Then, again, I was released and a few days later another warrant for ay arrest was Issued, again by the Special Court of Nurnberg. Then, I had been in prison until the 18th of December, 1943. For the third tine I was arrested that was at Regensberg--and ay arrest was made by the Gestapo.
So, altogether, I was arrested three tines; twice at Filsegg and once at Regensberg.
Q Father, at any tine during any of these three arrest did the police ever tell you who had signed the warrant for your arrest?
A Yes, when I was arrested the second tine, the police commissioner of Filsegg told me that the warrant was issued by Rothaug from the Special Court of Nurnberg.
Q After you had been arrested, Father, and imprisoned those three tines that you describe, you also mentioned a trial. Were you ever indicted and tried before a court?
A My trial took place on the 18th of December, that is, on the 19th of December, 1942, and the trial took place before tho Special Courts of Nurnberg and Amberg. The trial took place because of a malicious attempt, during a sermon which I had made fifteen months before at Filsegg.
Q Father, you state that you wore tried on December 19, 1942, by the Special Court of Nurnberg, but that the trial took place in Amberg. Is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct; it took place at Amberg, at the Town Hall.
Q Would you please repeat again, so far as you know, the violation of law for which you were indicted and tried?
A Well, the first arrest originated from the burial of a dead Pole who died at Filsegg and was sent over to the morgue from the hospital, as was customary there with the dead. The dead Pole, as every other Catholic, was transported from the hospital to the morgue, therefore as the church had given him the sacrament in the morning.
In the morning of this day he asked for a priest, and he was prepared for death. During the afternoon, then, he died. In the evening before we had our evening vespers--that was on a Sunday---the attendant of the morgue came to see me and he informed me that I had to order the transport of this dead Pole from the hospital to the morgue, and would have to take over the arrangements. I asked him whether it was permissible for me to do that, and he said, "Yes; the Magistrate has ordered that you do it." Therefore, I had no further doubts, and I went to the morgue, that is, to the hospital, and I ordered the transport, which was sponsored by the church.
Before I made my sermon at the evening vespers, as is customary at every transport of the dead, I communicated that to my parish people, that later on a dead Pole would be transported from the hospital to the morgue, because the people want to know who is the dead, who is in the coffin, in order to be able to know whether they have any obligation to attend the funeral or not. Of course, as it was a Sunday, there were quite a number of people in the church, comparatively, and quite a number of them attended the funeral, because thus they had an opportunity to go to the cemetery, which Was situated outside of our village.
Now, because of this communicating the fact to the people I was charged mainly by the Special Court. They considered it an invitation, that is to say, that I intentionally invited the population to attend the transport of the dead Pole. That was the main charge, made against me by the Special Court of Nurnberg.
They said that at this occasion, as the president said during the trial, I was said to have expressed religious feelings and used them intentionally in order to sabotage the directives of the State.
Q Father, may I interrupt, please? You state that at the trial, the main charges, so far as you know, were this conducting of a funeral for the Pole and a sermon that you preached the previous year. Is that correct?
A Well, the main charge in my trial was the sermon. That was the real reason for the trial, during the trial sermon was not so much dealt with but rather this whole matter with the Pole was dragged into the trial. In each detail it was talked about--just about this matter of having had the Pole transported. I was considered a malicious priest, and this was told to the public.
Q Father, when this police official, at the time of your second arrest, told you that Rothaug had signed the order for your arrest, how did you feel when you learned that?
A The police Commissioner in Vilseck told me lit orally that this arrest was originated by Rothaug, and as I heard it then I know," Now I don't get out of prison again. Now I am in for good." Because during my first arrest in prison, I already had an insight in the work of the Special Court, and that way during my second trial I was quite certain that I wouldn't get released any more.
Q Father, at your trial, do you remember who was the presiding judge?
A The presiding judge was the director of the district court, Dr. Rothaug.
Q At your trial, how many witnesses were called by the prosecution against you?
A There were four witnesses from Vilseck who had been summoned. I can give you the names.
Q I don't believe, Father, that the names arc necessary. How were these witnesses treated by the Presiding Judge , so far as you obeserved?
A The first witness, who was the Mayor Stubenvoll, talked quite independently. He told the court everything that he could say against me during this trial with matters which had no connection whatever with my case. Stubenvoll reproached mo with all my activities in school the youth, and the care, and whatever I had a personal dealings with him--he charged me with all that. But the female witness-
Q One moment, Father please. Who was those mayor that you speak of? Can you describe him?
A The Mayor, Hans Stubenvoll of Vilsek
Q Did he have any political connections that you know of, with regard to the NSDAP, for example?
A Yes. The Mayor Stubenvoll always reported everything to the Kreisleiter, Dr. Kolb in Amberg, my whole activity in the youth organizations, and he also reported my sermon of July 1941 to the Kreisleiter.
Q Father, did this Mayor have any title or official rank in the Party that you know of?
A Yes. He was an Ortsgruppenleiter.
Q Please describe the other witnesses that were called against you.
A Yes. The female witness, Barbara Stubenvoll, who was the wife of the Mayor, gave the impression that the Presiding judge told her and made leading questions to her to give that answer what he wanted to hear and in order to have her only answer what he wished to hear.
Q Father, who did you say put those questions?
A The Presiding Judge.
Q I believe you said that was Rothaug, did you not?
A Yes, that was Dr. Rothaug. During the whole trial there was only one man who spoke; that was Dr. Rothaug.
Q Did you have a defense counsel, Father, at the trial?
A Yes, I had a defense counsel. He was Justizrat Dr. Warmuth of Munich.
Q Did your defense counsel during the trial at any time attempt the secure evidence which was denied to him?
A Well, Yes. I think it was during the interrogation or during the examination of witnesses. He asked for notes which the Mayor Stubenvoll had composed from the testimony of his wife, and the lawyer wanted to have an insight into this notes, but the presiding judge Dr. Rothaug declared, and in a very energetic manner, that that was unnecessary. The only thing the lawyer could do to have a ruling of the court, but on that, the lawyer refrained from doing it because the presiding judge had already showed him in such an energetic manner that that was unnecessary.
Q Father, you have said that the main charge on your indictment was stated to be the malicious statements that you were supposed to have made in your sermon in 1941, is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct. Those were the main charges in the indictment.
Q Yes. Now Father, the sermon that you delivered on the occasion in 1941, to which the indictment referred, what text was that sermon?
A Well, the text was the sermon of the 7th Sunday after Pentecost. It is read every year. It is in Chapter VII of Matthew. "Beware of false prophets who talk around in the cloak of lambs but who in their interior are rearing wolves. You will recognize them from their cloaks." That was the beginning of my sermon.
Q Father, was this verse from Matthew the text of the sermon on that day every year?
A Every year we use the same text.
Q Now, Father, of the witnesses that were called against you-- I believe you said there wore four or five, which was it?
A There were four witnesses from Vilseck and the Gestapo Secretary Alt, but during the trial he didn't talk at all.
Q Well, of those four witnesses that did speak at the trial for the prosecution, how many of them heard your sermon of the preceding year, on the 7th Sunday after Whiterundag
A Two witnesses had heard my sermon. It was the wife of the Ortsgruppenleiter and the newspaper distributor Meyer Johann.
Q What did the newspaper distributor say or testify about your sermon?
A During the interrogation by the Gestapo official, he declared that my preaching had been aggressive; he said that my sermon was an incitement.
Q Father, you said that during the Gestapo investigation, he said that your sermon was aggressive and inciting, but that during the trial he denied that. Is that true?
A Yes, during the trial he denied that he had said that the sermon had been an inciting sermon. This expression " Hetzpredigt," inciting sermon, he did not use. That is what he said during the trial.
Q Describe Father, the testimony of the other witness that had heard your sermon; namely, the wife of the Mayor-Ortsgruppenleiter.
A Well, the wife of the Ortsgruppenleiter had only referred, during the trial, to what she had told the Gestapo official, and the other witness, Kuffer, brought forward merely personal matters in order to paint me as a malicious priest.
Q But this last witness, that you speak of, Kuffer had not heard your sermon, had he?
A No, he had not heard my sermon.
Q But the Mayor's wife had, is that correct?
A Yes, the wife of the Ortsgruppenleiter attended the sermon and heard it.
Q Well, Father, at your trial, did the Mayor's wife testify or was the statement she had given the Gestapo only introduced?
A No, the wife of the Mayor only answered questions put to her by the presiding judge. She herself didn't say much.
Q During the trial Father so far as you remember having observed, it, will you please describe Rothaug's conduct and words and statements from the bench.
A Right after my trial, in the cell of my prison, I took some stenographic notes concerning the remarks made by the presiding judge. Dr. Rothaug.
A (continued): And on the strength of those stenographic notes which I have here on my table, I can make the following statement concerning the trial. First of all the Presiding Judge referred to my education and there he became very personal right away, and charged me with the fact that my whole theological education was rather backward, and that it would have been much better if I had studied something else than theology: He said that I only lived the whole development cf National Socialist as a bystander locking from the window; During my trial the Hitler Youth passed the town hall, and at that occasion the Presiding Judge made the remark -- those down there, the Hitler youth, that is the real life. Later on in the course cf the trial, the Presiding Judge very often made ridiculous remarks concerning the Catholic religion, and made malivicus remarks concerning the profession of priest. Some of these remarks I could tell you literally, and they were the following: You Catholics allege that only Catholics will reach heaven, all others will be in hell. That is an assumption which no Catholic will ever make. Then, he said, and this remark was repeated again and again -- not water gives value to man, but rather the blood. And, of course, the water he referred to was the Catholic sacrificial water, or the water on the head, sanctifying water. For the National Socialist ideology has to be given to the child already with the milk cf his mother; and there it appears my parents had failed to educate me in this direction. Those were merely personal remarks.
Q. Father, may I interrupt a moment. Are you saying that the Presiding Judge, Rothaug, made the remarks, such as you have just described, to you from the bench, during the trial.
A. Yes, from the bench, during the trial. These remarks, I may say that after all they were not only meant for me, myself, but for the whole profession cf priesthood.
Q. Father, you have said that in your indictment the main charge was one of malicious statements made during that sermon in 1941, but you also said that during your trial Rothaug said much more about the business of your giving a funeral service to the Pole. Can you give any facts to explain why you say that?
A. Yes. Special Court Judge Rothaug dragged two things mainly into this trial. First of all, the removal of crosses from the schools in the district of Filseck, and then this transporting of the dead Pole from the hospital to the morgue. If I may add something concerning this matter of transferring the dead Pole; there again I can give you some more details.
Q. Yes, Father, I would be very interested in what Rothaug said about your transporting the dead Pole.
A. The whole courtroom was fully occupied. I, as well as the people attending the trial, was quite astonished especially by Rothaug going into the details concerning this Pole matter. He came back again and again on this matter in order to prove to me that I really had made malicious statements; and that I had had malicious and bad intentions, and on this occasion Rothaug shewed a terrible hatred against the Polish people.
Q. Father, excuse me. Do you remember that two days before your trial that a Pole was tried by that same court and sentenced to death by Rothaug?
A. Yes, during the trial Rothaug himself told us that; he said that we had one or two days before sentenced a Polak to death -- Polak being an insinuating way of saying Pole; and this Pole had tried to commit suicide in prison yesterday; and he went on to say and now we have additional troubles with that guy.
Q. Father, did Rothaug say anything else with regard to that Pole that had been tried and sentenced to death two days before?
A. No, why the Pole was condemned was not referred to.
Q. Father, I didn't ask you why the Pole was condemned; I asked you if Rothaug during your trial had anything further to say, either in a serious or joking way about that Polak you described?
A. No, concerning this Polak there was no further word, but concerning tho Poles in general there were some more remarks and Rothaug expressed himself in the following manner: If he had his way, then no Pole would be buried in a German cemetery, and then he went on to make the remark which everybody heard in that court room -- that he would get up from his coffin if near to him there was a Pole being buried.
Rothaug himself had to laugh because of this mean joke, and he went on to say "You have to be able to hate, because according to the Bible, God is a hating God." He probably referred to where God says, "I am a very active God."
Q. Father, you say Rothaug said you have to be able to hate: is that correct?
A. Yes, he said in quite a general way you have to be able to hate too, because according to the Bible, God is a hating God; that was his general remark.
Q. And yet, Father, you were being tried for a malicious utterance; were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Father, do you know who that Pole was that died and for whom you conducted the funeral service; was he a farm laborer, or what was he?
A. As far as I recall, he was in the camp Altneuhaus, but he was not a laborer; he was only in the camp.
Q. But he was in a camp with other Poles?
A. Yes. He was in a camp with other Poles at Altneuhaus near Filseck. There once in a while we had to make a religious service.
Q. Yes, Father. During your trial did Rothaug, from the bench, say to you anything concerning a person named Rosenberg?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was the Rosenberg to which Rothaug referred; do you know?
A. Yes; Rosenberg at that time was a Reichsleiter, and he was the founder cf the National Socialist ideology, because his book, Mythus of the 20th Century was the basis for the psychological ideas of National Socialism. Blut and Boden, blood and earth, these were the highest values according to him, and, therefore this bock was incompatible with Christianity. Rothaug alleged then that, according to his opinion there had been no argument against this book and it had not teen refuted so far.
He himself said he was reading every evening from this book.
Q. Father, did you ever hear this book discussed, or had you ever read it?
A. I have not read the bock because it was banned for us unless there was a special reason; then, we could get permission from the Bishop to read it. However, just from the argument against the book which had been made by leading theologians, I became familiar with the contents of the book.
Q. Then, Father, perhaps you can say from hearing and entering arguments by other theologians concerning Rosenberg's bock, whether or not it contained philosophies concerning the superiority of one race over another. Did it, or did it not contain such philosophies?
A. Well, I could not give you an exact opinion concerning that matter; during the trial it was not referred to, and this exact content in detail I am not quite familiar with. The main principles as we know from Blut and Boden were based upon the Ten Commandments of God.
Q. Father, do you know what happened to Alfred Rosenberg?
A. Yes, Alfred Rosenberg was sentenced by the American Military Tribunal at Nurnberg, sentenced to death, and the sentence has also been executed; that is what I know from the newspapers.
Q. Father, after your trial was concluded, what sentence did you receive?
I was sentenced on the grounds of malicious attacks to fifteen months of prison, and three months of custody pending trial were counted.
Q. Father, after the ceremony and sermon which you preached on the seventh Sunday after Whitsunday, 1941, how long was it from then until your trial, approximately?
AAbout fifteen months.
Q Tehn, for fifteen months after you preached the sermon for which you were tried as having made malicious utterances, nothing was done to you by the way of trial; is that correct?
A No, during these fifteen months nothing happened.
Q One moment, Father, please. Fifteen months after your sermon, during which nothing was done, you were tried, and part of the case was the funeral sermon you conducted for a Pole, is that correct?
A May I ask you to repeat the question please?
Q Father, fifteen months after your sermon, during your trial, your conduct of a funeral for a Pole was a part of the trial, wasn't it?
A Yes, during the trial.
Q Now, Father, when was this funeral for the Pole that you conducted?
A That was on the third Sunday in the month of May. I think it must be about 17 May, 1942.
Q In other words, Father, the sermon that you preached, on which the main count of your indictment was based, was fifteen months before your trial, and the Polish funeral was two or three months before your trail? Is that correct?
A Well, the funeral of the Polo was in May 1942, and the trial took place in december 1942. That would be about six months.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: There is no further direct examination, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Any Defense Counsel desire to cross examine this witness?
DR. KOESSL (Counsel for Defendant Rothaug): I ask to examine the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, for the first time you were arrested on the 1 June 1942, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q You said before that you made the church sponsored transfer of the Pole, and that you were arrested because of that. Was this church sponsored transfer of Poles prohibited?
A It was not prohibited for Poles, but I was charged with only the publication of this fact.
Q I could not quite get that, unfortunately. May I ask you to repeat what you were charged with?
A I was charged with the fact of having published this church sponsored transfer and that I made it public. That was explained as if I had invited and even asked the population to attend the funeral.
Q In other words, you were not charged with having transferred this Polo and sponsored it by the Church, but rather, it was the fact that you had violated the state directives, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q The first point was dealt with only by the Gestapo?
A Yes.
Q In other words, Rothaug had nothing to do with that?
A No, he had nothing to do with that.
Q However, you were charged with other violations of state directives, were you not? Is that correct?
A No, that is not correct. The Ortsgruppenleiter Stubenvoll had informed the Kreisleiter, Dr. Kolb, and he raised the point again because this sentence of two weeks was not enough for him, and that is the way this matter came to the Special Court in Nuernberg, and then it went on.
Q Well did this matter lead to a trial then?
A No. As far as I know-
Q Please go on.
AAs far as I know from my lawyer, this matter was diverted by Berlin, and that is why the second time, on 21 August, I was released again.
Q But then there were other denunciations against you?
A Yes, later on. After I had been released for the first time and and when I was in custody pending trial for the second time, only then was this sermon brought to the knowledge of the Special Court.