Commission 111 Case 111
Q I what manner did Director Letz, that is to say you, carry on with personnel policies after Thierack came into office? Could you tell the Court any examples from your experience.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Commission, I object to this question as being repetitious and irrevelant and completely beyond the scope of the affidavit. All these questions lately have been.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I believe I should be permitted to answer that there is a connections, for the witness has stated in the affidavit that the moment Thierack came into office higher officials were relieved from the office for reasons of party politics and that by Department I which was competent to do that. Therefore, it goes without saying that I have a primary right, by referring to that statement, to put a question to the witness which merely should clarify how personnel policy worked out in the competent department and was handled in the competent department after Thierack came into power.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is overruled.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q I ask you, witness, to explain briefly concerning this question: what the personnel policy was in Department I and to give us, if possible some definite examples.
Court No. 3, Commission III.
A. A short time after Thierack come into office a number of presidents of the district court of appeals wore retired or transferred. These were measures which, according to my observations, were initiated by Minister Thierack, at any rate, without taking into account the opinion of his assistants.
Q. Witness, in this connection I shall later rafer to the cases of the presidents of the District Court of Appeals. May I ask you to explain how it was in the case of Segelking and Lenz, with regard to the personnel policy.
A. I only wanted to say that these cases were decided in a dictatorial manner by Thierack himself, rather than to hear his assistants on them. In other cases where the men in charge of a department had a possibility to state their opinion about the recall of officials, the chief of Department I and his assistants tried to hold officials who had been attacked in their positions wherever this was possible. I remember that among others there was a referent in our personnel department, the then Ministerialrat Lenz, not a party member; he was considered a very religious man, against whom, just as before, so after Thierack came int power, attacks were launched with the purpose to have him removed from the Ministry, at any rate from the personnel department. Lenz was hold in office until about October, 1944. I believe that was on the initiative of Under Secretary of State Rethenberger that he was held. Then it was intended that a position of Ministerial Director was to be filled by a Mr. Segelking from Hamburg. As far as I know, charges of a political nature were raised against that man on the part of the party, and, as far as I know, it was Under Secretary Rethenberger at the time who achieved the appointment of that man to the position of Ministerial Director against these attacks which came from the party.
Q. Thank you. Witness, you told us about the Doebig case. Could you tell the Court in what manner you, at the time when Dr. Rethenberger became State Under Secretary and came to Nurnberg a few months after on an official trip, found out that the party offices Court No. 3, Commission III were against Dr. Doebig.
Could you please answer that?
A. Under Secretary of State Rothenberger, after he assumed office, visited the individual areas of the District Courts of Appeal. Generally tho way in which this was handled was that at this opportunity he addressed the judges and also officials of the party, and in that way introduced himself to the district. In October or November, 1942, he had his adjutant prepare a trip through the Austrian district courts of appeal and after that a trip to Nurnberg and Banberg. The man in charge of the personnel matters of that region, as a rule, had to accompany the Under Secretary on that trip. As far as the adjutant of Under Secretary Rothenberger told me, for Nurnberg it was intended that a meeting should take place where Under Secretary Rothenberger, as well as Gauleiter Helz, were to make speeches. It was intended that judges, prosecutors, officials of tho Administration of Justice, officials of the National Socialist Party, etc., were to attend this meeting. A few days before Under Secretary Rothenberger was to come to Nurnberg -- I was still in Berlin at that time -- I was called on the phone by tho President of the District Court of Appeals, Doebig, who said that on the initiative of the party, that meeting had been cancelled. He could not ascertain the reasons; the competent officials of the NSDAP and so on did not want to say anything about it. I asked the Oberlandesgerichts-President to try at least to hold a meeting in which judges and prosecutors should take part without the attendance of the party; that failed. Oberlandesgerichts President Doebig informed me that the party wanted a large public meeting with Gauleiter Helz, etc., to take place, but that at the time that was not possible. I reported these facts to the chief of the department and to the Minister, and received instructions that I was to notify Under Secretary of State Rothenberger, who at the time, I believe, was in Linz. I did so and was instructed to travel to Nurnberg and to wait there for Under Secretary Rothenberger. Then, when Under Secretary Rothenberger arrived in Nurnberg, quite contrary to the custom on the part of the National Socialist Lawyers' League, only a menor official Court No. 3, Commission III.
was sent to receive him, in the place of the Senior Prosecutor Engert, and one could see that there was some animosity against the Administration of Justice; it was quite apparent. Under Secretary Rothenberger, as far as I remember, on the very same day spoke to Gauleiter Helz in the evening in order to find out what was the matter. I was not present during, that conversation. When Under Secretary Rothenberger returned he was very excited. He told us that it had been very rough; that Holz and he had shouted at each other; and then he found out also that the entire matter had arisen from the charges against the President of the District Court of Appeals, Doebig. I had the impression from the statements made by Under Secretary Rothenberger that he had protested to the Gauleiter against the charges, and the demand for transfer of Doebig, and, at any rate, that he had demanded an investigation of these charges.
Q. Is it correct, therefore, witness, that the large meeting in the presence of the party and so on was only supposed to take place if the demand on the part of the Gauleiter Helz to have Doebig transferred would be granted on the part of the Ministry of Justice?
A. I had the impression that that was the condition.
Q. Then, you said that you had explained to the Minister the difficulties after Doebig had called you about this matter by telephone in Berlin. Did the Minister do anything thereafter in order to remove or straighten out these differences between the party and Rothenberger, or the Ministry?
A. He didn't tell me anything; he did not give me any instructions or oders; he only asked whether I happened to know what the reason for these possible differences could be, and besides instructed me to notify Under Secretary Rothenberger.
Q. Then, when you received Under Secretary Rothenberger in Nurnberg, was there any representative of the party present?
A. I said before there was, as I put it to Kingly, a little man from the National Specialist Lawyers' League, a minor official.
Court No. 3, Commission III.
Q. I see. Now, after Nurnberg there were two trips made by Under Secretary Rothenberger to Bamberg and Wurzburg. About these trips, which were also events of the nature of personnel politics, can you toll us anything about these trips?
A. After the trip to Nurnberg, Under Secretary Rothenberger went to Bamberg; there also a similar meeting had been prepared, as in Nurnberg, but that meeting really took place. Under Secretary Rothenberger told us afterwards while we stayed at Bamberg that also here in Bamberg there was a demand to have the President of the District Court of Appeals transferred, a man by the name of Dr. Duerig; that gentleman a gainst the will of the party, that is against the will of both Gauleiters, had been appointed to that position under Schlegelberger.
Case 3 Commission 3 Ane, for that reason he was suspected from the outset, that was also the cause for these charges.
When on the way back to Berlin I discussed the results of the trip, Undersecretary Rothenberger said, if I remember correctly, that man, Dr. Duerig, who has excellent qualifications, cannot be dropped; he was in fact kept in that position until summer 1944 when he was transferred to Leitmeritz.
Q. Was it Gauleiter Wrechtler who demanded his transfer?
A. I cannot say that. It could be assumed that in view of previous attacks against him, it was both the Gauleiters in Bamberg and Bayreuth.
Q. And, what was the case of the President of the District Court of Appeal, Dr. Dietl, in Wuerzburg?
A. In Wuerzburg there was a President of the District Court of Appeals by the name of Dr. Dietl, who was a similar type to Dr. Duerig, who against the will of the Party, had been appointed, had excellent qualifications, and maintained an attitude against the Party. Either during the trip of Under-secretary Rothenberger to Bamberg or later on the occasion of his trip to Wuerzberg, when I was not present, also the recall of that President of the District Court of Appeals as a politically unreliable man was demanded by the Gauleiter; that I know from information received from Under-Secretary Rothenberger, and from letters from the Gauleiter. The recall of that gentleman was rejected by Under-Secretary Rothenberger; in the same manner as for Duerig, he intervened and tried to held him in his position; he remained there until the collapse.
Q. Is it correct that in the latter case, Deitl, the Gauleiter made several attempts demanding that the Reich Ministry of Justice transfer the President of the District Court of Appeals, Dietl, and that in spite of that Case 3 Commission 3 Dr. Rothenberger stated there was no cause to have that man recalled?
A. I believe I can remember that, in several instances letters or even telegrams, to that effect came in from the Gauleiter at Wuerzburg. At that time as far as I remember, a very brief answer was made, that there was no cause to have Dietl transferred.
Q. Now, the last question. You have told us quite in general terms, that the Presidents, Duerig and Dietl were men of an attitude contrary to the Party. Can you give us mor detailed, a more clear description of these men so that the Court can see the type these men were?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Commission, the present line of questioning goes far beyond any interpretation or clarification of the affidavit. It is my position, at the present time, that this witness has been made a Defense witness. I object to this line of questions as irrelevant, repetitious, and beyond the scope of the affidavit.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Gentlemen of the Commission, may I say the following quite briefly: The subject, without doubt exists in the affidavit, that is the personnel policy after, Thierack came into office. And, in a very strictly objective manner, I only dealt with questions of personnel policy of the Ministry of Justice; that is to say, of Undersecretary Rothenberger, who was particularly competent for that, who was in charge of that department and, therefore, I believe that question is definitely pertaining to the subject because the attitude with respect to personnel policy on the part of Dr. Rothenberger is clearly to be seen from the answers given to my last question. And, that ought to be something which is of interest to the Court, Commission 3 Case 3 and is definitely in connection with the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: We have allowed a very wide scope in your cross examination already in order to permit you to develop the relationship between the defendant Rothenberger to the personnel policy. In that connection, we have allowed general statements concerning the character of men which the witness has indicated were supported by Rothenberger against the opposition of the Party. Your last question, however, seeks details as to the character and conduct of thest judges who have been characterized as good men. The Commissioners feel that we have extended as wide a scope to your cross examination as is proper, and the objection is sustained.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any re-direct examination?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, very brief your Honor.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. Dr. Miethsam, I understood you to say that at the beginning of the Thierack regime in 1942, your boss Nadler was discharged and replaced by Letz; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you also stated that this replacement, Letz, previous to that had worked for a number of years with the defendant Rothenberger in Hamburg; is that correct?
A. Letz had been Vice-President of the District Court of Appeal in Hamburg, and in that position was subordinate to Dr. Rothenberger, who was President of the District Court of Appeal in Hamburg.
Q. Dr. Miethsam, did Rothenberger bring Letz to Berlin with him when he assumed his position as Under-Secretary?
Commission 3 Case 3
A. He came to Berlin a short time after Rothenberger became Under-Secretary, and, therefore, I think I can say that the answer is yes.
Q. (Interposing) Without giving any names, Dr. Miethsam, just mentioning numbers, if you happen to know them how many other officials did the defendant Rothenberger bring to Berlin with him in 1942 at the beginning of his and Thierack's term of office?
A. In the Ministry of Justice one spoke jokingly of an invasion from Hamburg, but that is just a joke. With him, of course, came the Adjutant, who, of course is always a confidential assistant. As I said before Mr. Segelkemp came--names I can remember at the moment, there was a man by the name of Bugatzki, I believe another----
THE PRESIDENT: Let us not go into details on matters of minor importance.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I have no further questions, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
(The witness was then excused and withdrew from the court room.)
THE PRESIDENT: Call your next witness.
DR. KOESSL (for defendant Rothaug): May I take advantage of this short intermission in order to ask the judge for a decision as to whether the witness Kassing is to be heard in person or whether the submission of an affidavit is to be approved. I discussed that question yesterday late in the afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any objections Mr. Wooleyhan to the presentation of an affidavit by the witness Kassing, and his being excused from attendance at this time?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, your Honor, I insist that the witness, Kassing, be cross examined here in preference to Case 3 Commission 3 any affidavit that he may make.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand he is at present in Nurnberg.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be the ruling.
Perhaps I should state more accurately. We are ruling that is is preferable when possible, that witnesses who have given affidavits should be crossexamined in open court. This witness is available, an objection has been made to the receipt of an affidavit, and therefore, we will follow the preferable rule, that he shall be cross examined in open court or rather in open commission hearing.
Commission 111 Court 111
DR. KOESSL: (for defendant Rothaug): I ask to be permitted to continue the cross-examinatin of the witness Kern. It is the affidavit in the document book 31, NG-563, Exhibit 232.
JUDGE BLAIR: Has this witness been sworn?
DR. KOESSL: The witness has been sworn. It is just a question of continuing and concluding the cross-examination.
JUDGE BLAIR: Give us the Exhibit number and the -
DR. KOESSL: Exhibit 232. In Document Book 31. In the German text it is on page 116. In the English Document Book on page 115.
HANS KERN - Resumed.
CROSS - EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, we came to the case Durka and Strus before we interrupted. Do you happen to know whether the short time limit was in the interest of Rothaug?
A If I remember correctly it was not.
Q Witness, can you remember that during the trial a document became very important, which had been thrown into a shaft, and which was important as an indiction for the fact that the two defendants had committed the crime.
A I remember that a document was cf importance during the trial, that was found in a shaft and crumpled up. But I do not remember that any conclusion could be drawn from that document about the fact that the two had committed the crime.
Q Can you remember, witness, that at any rate the older one of the two defendants who was defended by another counsel confessed the crime?
AAs far as I remember the defendant who was defended by Justizrat Kuehn denied having committed the crime.
Q Do you concede that in this case either your recollection is not quite correct, or at any rate a confession existed in the preliminary investigation.
Commission 111 Court 111
JUDGE BRAND: Dr. Koessl, just a moment. A merely technical matter. It has come to your attention that the witness, when he was heard before, was testifying as a witness before the full Tribunal- whereas now he is testifying before a Commission, and I think possibly, in the interest of regularity, the witness should be again sworn. If you will pardon the interruption in the cross-examination.
The witness will then rise and be sworn as a witness before the Commission.
DR. KOESSL: Yes.
JUDGE HARDING: Raise your right hand and repeat after me:
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 HARDING: You may be seated.
JUDGE BRAND: Will you please start over again, Dr. Koessl?
DR. KOESSL: Perhaps I can shorten the procedure by asking the witness whether he will extend his oath to the answers he has given heretofore.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, do you extent your oath to the answer which you have just given to me in three questions?
A Yes.
Q Can you remember, witness, that the two defendants, when the fire broke out, were in the close vicinity cf the place where it happened?
A Yes.
Q Now, I have another question concerning the Wendel case. You say concerning the Wendel case that the burglar was sentenced twice for the same offense. I should, like to ask you, by that manner of expressing yourself did you intend to say that the principle of double jeopardy had been viola tool in the Wendel case?
A No, that was not my intention. That seems to be an unhappy Commission 111 Court 111 wording with the prosecutor.
At any rate I did not intend to express that Wendel was sentenced twice for one and the same crime because only one was act committed. The first sentence, upon nullity plea, was revoked by the Reich Supreme Court and then the same case had to be tried again.
DR, KOESSL: I have no further questions to this witness.
JUDGE BRAND: Is there any other cross-examination of this witness upon the affidavit? --- Any redirect?
MR. KING: Just a few questions.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KING:
Q Dr. Kern, when you appeared before the Court on last Wednesday defense counsel for the defendant Oeschey inquired if perhaps you could not be mistaken in your statement in the affidavit concerning the Crossnik case. I refer to the statement in the English text which begins at the top of page 6 in the affidavit. This morning I want to show you a newspaper item concerning that case and then inquire of the newspaper account does not refresh your recollection as to the facts of the case. I point out to the Commission and to defense counsel that I have before a copy of the Nuernberger Beobachter for the counsel September-The name of the publication is not "Wuernberger Beebachter'-it is the "Fraenkische Tageszeitung" and the item to which I refer is to be found in the second column on page 5 for the issue of September 26, 1941. Now, Dr. Kern, I have placed that publication before and ask you -first I shall give you opportunity to read it-
Now, fer the benefit of the Commission will you read that slowly? I point out it is only very short. Will you read that slowly so that the translators may follow you in your reading:
A (Reading) "Also under indictment for a crime against paragraph 4 of the decree against the public ennemies, together with a r crime of manslaughter, was the twenty-two-year-old Pole Ludwig Kwasnik Commission 111 Case 111 cf Diesbeck near Neustadt on the Aisch, who had been employed as an agricultural worker on the farm of a widow of forty-two.
In a very regrettable manner that German woman had started something with the Pole. She had to atone her sin by death, and destroyed the happiness of her two children who are still at an age when they are going to school. With a rare form of bruatality and lack of humane feeling the Pole, who of course had been instructed when he was sent to work in the field that he would lose his life if he dared to come close to a German woman- he had tried to remove the fruit of the prohibit relations. The woman died from blood poisoning which was of course, the result cf a prehibed operation. The death sentence is to be a warning that no one out of a false feeling of sentimentality should let the Poles become to swell-headed, as this happens frequently in the country where there are not sufficient people to control them."
MR. KING: Dr. Kern, does the article which you have just read confirm the statements which you made in your affidavit and about which you were questioned on last Wednesday?
Commission III, Case III
THE PRESIDENT: The question isn't whether it confirms his opinion, but whether his recollection is refreshed so that he can now testify himself. This document is not evidence, there being no objection we permitted him to examine it to see if it refreshed his recollection. Your question should be whether his recollection has been refreshed.
MR. KING. Yes, Your Honor, I shall do that.
BY MR. KING:
Q.- Dr. Kern, having read this item, is your recollection now refreshed so that you personally can reaffirm the statements which you made in your affidavit and about which you were questioned on last Wednesday?
A.- Yes.
MR. KING: We have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. King.
MR. KING: Yes?
THE PRESIDENT: I have just observed that Exhibit 232 in my book seems to be incomplete. I call your attention to it merely so that I may be supplied with a proper copy of that exhibit.
MR. KING: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
You are through with this witness?
MR. KING: It has been pointed out that there may be some -- Witness, may I ask one further question?
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, witness.
BY MR. KING:
Q.- Witness, there is some -
THE PRESIDENT. I am sorry, Mr. King but the time has arrived to recess. The technical reasons to which I referred yesterday, which relate to the electrical recording, re Commission III, Case III quire that we stop now for our recess.
MR. KING: All right.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess for 15 minutes.
(a recess was taken)
Commission III, Case III THE MARSHAL:
The Commission is again in session.
BY MR. KING:
Q.- Dr. Kern, it was called to my attention that I did not specifically ask you the following question:
Are you now sure, from having read the article in the newspaper, that the name of the case which we discussed this morning and about which you were questioned on last Wednesday -- are you sure that the name of that case was Kwasnik?
A.- Yes.
MR. KING: No farther questions.
THE PRESIDENT: You are through with this witness?
MR. KING: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
(Witness excused)
Call your next witness.
WILHELM HOFFMANN, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows.
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)
You may be seated.
DR. KOESSL (Counsel for the defendant Rothaug); The witness Hoffmann is to be examined in regard to an affidavit in supplementary volume IIII-A, Document NG-647, Exhibit 476, page 51 in the German Document Book.
EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL.Q.- Witness, please state your full name and your profession.
Commission III, Case III A.- Hoffmann, Wilhelm, Chief Public Prosecutor, retired in Hof.
Q.- Witness, during the entire time when Rothaug was presiding judge of the Special Court in Nurnberg, you worked with the prosecution in Nurnberg?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Did you deal with many cases at the Special Court under Rothaug?
A.- I never was the representative of the prosecution at the Special Court in Nurnberg, only during the time when the position of Senior Public Prosecutor in Nurnberg was not occupied, or when the Senior Public Prosecutor who occupied that position was ill or was absent for other reasons. I, as the oldest ranking prosecutor, substituted for the Senior Public Prosecutor? In that capacity I was also in charge of Division I of the Nuernberg Prosecution where the cases were handled which were indicted at the Special Court.
Q.- Witness, can you still remember the times well when you substituted for the Senior Public Prosecutor for some length of time?
A.- The position of Senior Public Prosecutor in Nuernberg, until the 1st of July, 1941, was not occupied by anybody. I, myself, as the oldest ranking prosecutor, after returning from my service with the Wehrmacht -- as far as I know, that was on the 18th of December, 1939 -- took over the position of Senior Public Prosecutor. That is to say, as deputy I guided the public prosecution in Nuernberg from the 18th of December 1939 until the 1st of July 1941.
In the fall of 1941, the then Senior Public Prosecutor Schroeder fell ill , he got pneumonia. During that time, I again took over as deputy of the Senior Public Prosecutor.
Commission III, Case III I cannot remember the exact date any more; however, it may have been for about eight weeks.
After that time I only substituted for the Senior Public Prosecutor when he was on vacation or was absent from Nurnberg on official duties.
Q,- Witness, in more serious cases, or in general, did you report to the General public Prosecutor or the Ministry of Justice at a time when the indictment had not been filed with the Special Court as yet?
A.- Reports about more serious cases, before the indictment was filed, had -- according to official regulations, not only in regard to Special Court cases, but also in all other penal cases -- to be reported to the superior authority, that is, the General Public Prosecutor in Nurnberg, and by him to the Reich Ministry of Justice.
Q.- Witness, can you confirm that Rothaug also appointed as defense counsel, men who were not members of the Party and were otherwise also not considered to be National Socialists?
A.- I cannot make any statement about that, namely, as to which lawyers did not belong to the Party.
Q.- Do you remember -- excuse me.
A.- In the court house one did, to be sure, discuss the fact that some of the lawyers were probably opposed to the Party. I remember that this was said about the following lawyers. Grohe, Korn; Rupp; I believe Meyer also. Whether these gentlemen were appointed as defense counsel at the Special Court In Nurnberg, or whether they were counsel who were selected by the defendants I cannot recall any more. In the appointment of defense counsel I noticed only that quite frequently lawyers were appointed as defense counsel by the court who were considered nonentities Commission III, Case III by circles of lawyers.
