THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Schlegelberger -- (To Mr. LaFollette) Will you pardon a question?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Certainly, your Honor.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Would you make just one matter clear to me? With reference to your power to resign before the war, which you said was impossible for factual reasons, was there any law or any decree which forbade you to resign?
A No, not before the war, your Honor.
BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q Now, with reference to this Eltz von Ruebenach matter, can you place the year?
A I will have to think -- no, I cannot say it with certainty. It must have been 1938 or 1939, but I could not be sure of it.
Q If it was 1937 you wouldn't say that was wrong?
A It would be possible.
Q It was before the war?
A Yes, before the war.
Q And the resignation of Kurt Schmidt was in 1935, I believe you said?
A Yes.
Q Now, Kurt Schmidt is alive, is he not, as far as you know?
A I believe so, indeed.
Q And von Ruebenach?
A That I don't know.
Q Can you tell us whether Schmidt or von Ruebenach were ever placed in a concentration camp?
A I don't know anything about that.
Q If they had been they being rather prominent persons, some knowledge of it would have come to your attention, isn't that a fair assumption?
A I should assume so. I could not say any more about it.
Q Now, I think we can agree on this matter, and I won't have to introduce the document at all: You recall that on the 29th of July, 1946, you were cross-examined by Dr. Kempner in connection with your testimony for the Defense in the matter of the Reichkabinet being designated as a Defendant before the I.M.T. Do you recall?
A Of course, I remember it, but I don't remember the day.
Q You remember the cross-examination by Dr. Kempner?
A Yes, indeed.
Q The record I have here, and then if there is any question about it I will consult the German; but I believe you will remember. I don't want to take advantage of you. You were asked, "When did you come to the opinion that Hitler was a dictator and the whole thing had become a tyranny?" That question you answered, "I came to that conviction approximately in 1939." Would that be an accurate statement? Would you care to say that was your opinion?
A May I ask you to please put the question once more?
(Repeated by the interpreter.)
A Upon what question have I answered at that time?
Q I think I can get it for you in just a second.
(Transcript of record secured.)
I think you will find that in German on page 3, in German, Doctor.
A Yes.
(Transcript of record handed witness.)
Yes, I have found it.
Q I ask you now, is your answer to that question your opinion now, today?
A Yes, that is also my opinion now, today.
Q Would you be able today to fix the time in 1939 a little more closely than you did then? Was it early in 1939 or just about the time of the war with Poland -- or when was it in 1939?
A That came about gradually. That is, as soon as the Cabinet meetings were discontinued, the power which Hitler assumed in addition, to which he actually held, increased more and more, and naturally that expressed itself very strongly during the war.
Q Cabinet meetings were actually dispensed with even before 1939, were they not?
A Yes.
Q Now, way back in 1933, while Dr. Guertner was ill or away, you attended Cabinet meetings as his representative in the early days, did you not?
A I could, not say Cabinet meetings. As far as I remember, I only attended one single Cabinet meeting.
Q Well, there is a letter which I have here which may cover that exactly, dated March 6th, 1933, and signed by Dr. Lammers, in which he states that the Reichskanzler at that time -- that was Hitler, was it not?
A (Witness nodded yes.)
Q The 6th of March, 1933, was Hitler Reichkanzler then?
A Yes.
Q The Reichkanzler asked you to attend for the duration of the Reich Ministry of Justice, not only Cabinet meetings, but all Ministers' conferences; as near as you recall, pursuant to that invitation you attended only one, is that right?
A I remember only -- maybe I should state that more precisely; I remember one meeting which was continued the next day or the day after. That must have been a meeting which took place about the 20th or 21st of March.
Q 1933?
A Yes. And I remember that quite vividly, because the 21st of March was the so-called day of Potsdam, where Hitler and Hindenburg met at the Garrison Church at Potsdam. On the previous day, during that Cabinet meeting which I remember so well, I had had a rather serious conflict with Hitler, a clash, and a continuation of the meeting followed on the next day, where I rebutted the objections and reproaches that Hitler made to me.
Q Was the Enabling Act which denied civil rights discussed at that Cabinet meeting? As I recall, it was passed a few days after. Do you remember?
A I beg your pardon. I did not quite understand the question.
Q The Enabling Act which the Hitler regime passed, which abrogated the provisions for civil liberties, discloses, I think, that it was adopted a few days after the time that you fixed, the 20th of 21st of March. Was it discussed at that Cabinet meeting that you attended?
A Not to my knowledge, not to my knowledge.
Q Now, how long before the 1st of September, 1939, did the preparations for mobilization begin in Germany, if you remember -mobilization of the armed forces?
A I could not give you any information on that.
Q You don't -- did you have no information about the preparation for mobilization, Dr. Schlegelberger?
A You showed me the record before, the transcript of the International Military Tribunal. I did not finish reading it, but if I remember correctly, I was asked at that time whether in 1939 I expected the outbreak of the war, and I also gave an answer to that question. I should like to refer to that answer. It was like this: In the late summer of 1939 I intended to make a vacation trip, and I discussed that with Guertner, and he told me, "You can go away now, because there certainly will be no war at all". And I went on that trip and was surprised by the outbreak of the war. From that, you can see, I should think, that personally I did not believe there would be a war at that time.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I want to say for the benefit of the witness, and for Dr. Kubuschok, the Court, that document NG 1513, which I shall want to have identified as Exhibit No. 521, is described an original letter dated 11 February 1942, from the defendant, Dr. Schlegelberger to Lammers, concerning Hitler's decree of 25 January 1942, for the further simplification of administrative procedure -- that would be exhibit 522, not 521.
THE PRESIDENT: What is 1513?
MR. LAFOLETTE: That is the NG number, your Honor, NG 1513. Your Honor, I have it here in my hand now, and I will send it up.
THE PRESIDENT: 522 is the exhibit number?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes. I am confronted with this situation which I want to state to the Tribunal, and Dr. Kubuschok, and the witness. The photostatic original of this is still being translated. There seems to be only one photostatic original or else it is the original which is being used in the translation here; therefore, I do not have the English, and a technical exhibit I do not have. I am advised from the information that I have that this document opens with the statement: "Even in connection with the preparations for mobilization I ---"
(One of the defendants, at this time, proceeded to lower the shade)
I will start again, "Even in connection with the preparation for the mobilization, I stressed the necessity of simplifying legal procedure to suit war time conditions." I would like to ask the witness if he wrote this letter, but I have only this mimeographed copy at this time, and I do not have an exhibit. If I may proceed, unless Dr. Kubuschok objects, I would like to proceed and furnish the original with the understanding that the cross-examination not be considered if I do not furnish the original. Dr. Kubuschok if there is no objections -
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead; unless he objects you can proceed without any explanation.
Q You have this mimeographed copy? The opening sentence reads, substantially in English translation as, "Even in connection with the preparation for the mobilization, I stress the necessity of simplifying legal procedure to suit war time conditions." This letter is dated February 11, 1942. In English of that statement, do you want to change your statement that you just made, that you did not know about the preparations for war?
A No, I do, not want to change it. I want to say the following with reference to this letter: Whether or not I signed that letter, I do not know. I ask to be permitted to stress the following; If the first sentence in this letter begins already with the mobilization preparations, I put emphasis, it does not mean "I" for the person who signed it, but "I" for the Reichsminister of Justice. That is the style in which the things were written in the Ministry. Had I written in 1942 that the Reichsminister Guertner, had I written about something the Reichsminister Guertner did in 1939, then I would also write already in the year 1939, I did that and that." meaning the Minister. From that version, therefore, one cannot draw any conclusions. Moreover, there are two things to consider. I doubt very much whether I had anything to do with these matters at all; these matters were designated as part of the preparations to mobilize, and which is known to exist in every country; and then, as a matter of course, had to be worked over. In 1938, that was the year of tension, I was out of my office for months because I had an accident and went to the hospital. I do not say that because I want to shirk any responsibility, but because I consider it my duty to inform the prosecutor about conditions as they actually were. That also the simplification of administration of justice is caused by the war is part of the preparation for mobilization because one had to expect shortages of personnel, that is clear to me.
Q If one anticipated a shortage of personnel during the war, then one must have anticipated a war; is that not correct?
A If one makes preparations for mobilization, then one always thinks of the possibility of a war.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Thank you. I would like to have a notation made that the Prosecution's Exhibit No. 522, should -- or rather document NG 1513, should be indentified as Prosecution's exhibit 522, when it is subsequently offered.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be indentified as Exhibit 522.
Q Now, I think you testified that during the time you were in office you were constantly confronted with the attacks by Frank who was the head of the Nationalist Socialist Lawyer's League, and the Academy for German Law. This is the same Frank who was Minister of Justice in Bavaria prior to centralization?
A Yes.
Q Are you acquainted with the Prosecution's exhibits 17, 18, 19 and 20, which are in book 1-A, and consists of four speeches by Frank, have you read those speeches in the exhibit, in the document book?
A Probably, I did not read them, but I do not recall any more what they were about.
Q Exhibit 17, or excerpts from speeches made by Hans Frank on 23 October 1933 in which Frank says among other things, "There is no legal profession separate from the people as a whole. No, we only want a regiment of Jurists in the great army of National Socialists and we should be proud of the Fuehrer were to admit this regiment of Law forever amongst his ranks." It was published in the Deutsche Politik in 1933, apparently. Were you acquainted with the writings and speeches of Frank in 1933 and 1934?
A No, it was quite sufficient for me if I had to listen to him at times, but I did not read anything written by him.
Q When you listened to him were his thoughts on the administration of justice analogous to those which I have just read to you, those speeches which you listened to?
A I can only say that it is difficult to state whether they were similar or not and analogous. Frank wanted to make justice an instrument of a docile instrument of the party office, that was his aim.
Q And, you are acquainted with those speeches you heard prior to 1939, surely?
A Not from his published speeches, but from the addresses he gave to us when he came to the Ministry and asked us to support his cause. One gets the wrong picture if one believes that Frank, so to say, worked in a different geographical territory, and we just heard from him. Continuously he attacked us by way of visits in the Ministry, by speeches on occasions of festivities, that continuous pushing on his part, that was his method and he was quite capable to express his program in just a few words.
Q. Let me have NG--106. The Prosecution asks that Document NG--1061 be marked for identification as Prosecution Exhibit 523. That exhibit which you now have in your hands, Dr. Schlegelberger, is a letter signed by you on the 4th of December 1941, addressed to Dr. Lammers.
A. Yes.
Q. And in it, you see you are in agreement with the ReichsfuehrerSS and the Chief of the German Police on the subject matter of abolishing amnesties which were granted between 1918 to 1933 because you thought they were granted to too broadly even to traitors. Do you recall that letter?
A. I remember it now when I read it. With your permission, I should like to go on reading it.
Yes, I have read it now.
Q. Who was the Reichsfuehrer-SS and the Chief of the German Police? Was that one or two person, at that time?
A. No. That was one person.
Q. And who was it?
A. Himmler.
Q. So you were not always in disagreement with Herr Himmler?
A. Of course not. There had to be cases where one was of the same opinion, but I should like to say something in connection with this document. The letter says that in the Amnesty Laws of the years 1918 to 1933, especially in the Amnesty Law dated 1928; amnesty was granted even to traitors, and the sentences passed were ordered expunged from the penal register. Then I set forth that I was of the opinion that such a rehabilitation could not be justified, and that therefore, one had to re-enter these sentences into the penal register. In that connection I wish to state that I have explained yesterday, already, that in my opinion, treason is the most serious political crime that any one could commit; that the Reichsfuehrer--SS and Chief of the Police shared that opinion speaks for him. Moreover, I believe we saw during the late years that amnesty once granted would no longer be considered legally valid because the concept of things changed.
Q. But these were amnesties granted between 1918 and 1933 for acts committed between 1918 and 1933, were they not?
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you. You told me that you did not road Frank's speeches if you could avoid it because you had enough when you had to listen to it. Did you ever read Dr. Goebbel's pamphlets or documents?
A. No. I never read the pamphlets. From time to time, I read one of his speeches in the newspapers. I also had the opportunity to read some of it in the indictment, but not apart from that. Moreover, in any explanations I have already pointed out that some of these speeches by Goebbels which I have read were intended to have that undermining influence on the conscience of the judges and therefore were extremely dangerous.
Q. Now you testified rather extensively yesterday about the extermination of people under the Euthanasia program and you referred to the Prosecution Exhibit 384 which was Document NG-833. As I gathered, you stated that as a result of your efforts after Dr. Guertner's death, this Euthanasia program and the extermination of insane people was stopped shortly after you came in as Acting Minister. Is that a correct statement of your testimony?
A. I said that according to my information, that was stopped in August, 1941.
Q. Would you be surprised or would you have any explanation for a decision of a Berlin Court of Appeals on 26 August 1946 which sentenced two hospital officials to death for killing about 600 persons under this Hitler Order for Euthanasia? The records in this case showed that the killings were committed in 1943 and 1944. Do you consider that possible?
A. Here during my time in Nuernberg, I have been informed about these sentences. I can only conclude from that that during subsequent years when I was no longer in office, new Euthanasia measures were applied.
Q. I recall that you stated on direct examination, that you did not cash the check for 100,000 Reichsmarks which you received when you left the services as Acting Minister of Justice. Is that correct?
A. I did not understand the question. Would you be so kind to repeat it?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Did you desire to ask a question?
THE PRESIDENT: I recall that the money was still in the bank.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: At that time I was not here, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what you said?
Q. The 100,000 Reichsmarks are still in the bank?
A. Still in the bank.
Q. Did you ever make an attempt to use that money for your personal use, for the acquisition of any property?
A. I know at what you are driving, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q. That is fine.
A. I should like to answer the following. I believe that all germans and even many Americans know the great life story of the greatest of our poets and writers, Goethe. It is balled "Dichtung und Wahrheit". (Truth and Fiction). From your question, I should gather that you were only told fiction about it so far, and I am very happy and fortunate to have the opportunity to tell you the truth now.
Q. We can look this over together. I will hand you Document NG--391which I would like to have identified as Prosecution Exhibit 524 and we will talk about it. You have before you a letter which is dated January 14, 1944. You addressed it to Dr. Lammers. Also accompanying that was a letter of the same date which you addressed to the Fuehrer as "My Fuehrer". I assume that was the Fuehrer of the German Reich, Adolf Hitler.
First, I would like to ask you to explain this sentence, "My original intention to issue an order for a Himmler object cannot be fulfilled." What was a "Himmler object."?
I understand the translation is bad. What kind of an object is it?
I am very sorry, it is a very bad translation. I do not want to mislead, and I want the record to be straighten out. I understand it say a "certain object", not a "Himmler object". Maybe you would enlighten me though as what a "certain object" that you wanted to issue an order for it.
Q Now I am more confused than ever. I am advised -- maybe you can tell me -- that in your own handwriting it is written "Himmler object" . Is that correct?
A No, no; it means a certain object, a certain object.
Q Then you are the victim of my kind of handwriting, Dr. Schlegelberger. Will you tell me what object -- Will you describe what your original intention was for this "bestimmtes object"?
A May I say something in connection with these matters?
Q Yes.
A There is a whole story, or a whole novel, or a whole fiction behind these letters, assertions which have to be considered definitely in connection with the following:
After I had left my office I was pushed out of my apartment in Berlin because that apartment was needed for the storing of furniture of a high Party functionary. I then moved into a small bungalow which I owned, but since that could not be a permanent place of residence, I made an attempt to acquire a small garden plot in Baden. I went to a real estate agent, and he wrote me the following:
"It is absolutely no use trying to acquire real estate because, according to prevailing provisions, a private individual can only acquire such a piece of real estate with special approval from Hitler. Therefore, until you bring that written approval, I can not even look around to acquire any real estate for you."
Therefore, I had to try to obtain that approval, the right for which approval was reserved to the Chief of the State. I had no alternative but to make an application of that kind and file it via Minister Lammers.
If I write there in my letter to Lammers that I can not carry out my original intention to obtain the approval, then that should explain the fact that, in a quite unusual manner, I had asked for blanket approval, because the normal way is that one looks at a piece of real estate first, one selects it, and then one asks for approval. However, I could not do that, for the reasons which I have stated.
Subsequently, as I have stated, I approached Hitler, through Lammers, and, of course, in order to get his approval, I had to put those points into the letter that were needed to achieve that purpose. The first one was in connection with the donation which I received. The second was to state my worries about my sons who were in the armed forces. I assumed, as far as I knew Hitler's temperament, that that would make an impression. Apart from that, I emphasized, in fact, that I personally had sufficient funds at my disposal in order to purchase that piece of real estate, which should be nothing else than a modest place to live.
I think that should be sufficient for the moment.
Q Yes, but the term "estate" is used, end you use the words "manage with agricultural experts" , so this would be a little larger than a garden plot, would it not?
A The question is only that Hitler reserved for himself the right of approval, so that not the smallest piece of lend could be withdrawn from agricultural production. The question as to whether it was one piece more of garden plot or a small agricultural enterprise was beside the point; the main thing was that I had to get that approval to buy that real estate with my own funds.
Q Yes.
Then there is a letter in this file of 3 February 1944, which says that you are in reduced circumstances and have to carry your own coal. Is that true? I mean, that is what someone else writes about your situation.
A I did not understand; the 3rd of February?
Q Yes, the 3rd of February, 1944. It is signed "Kritzinger"; there is a notation. What is that supposed to mean? It says "As I was informed in the Reich Ministry of Justice...."
A Yes.
Q Yes. Now, you read there that it says you are in reduced circumstances and have to carry your own coal.
A Yes.
Q But I believe you said just a minute ago that you had money other than this hundred thousand Reichsmarks with which to buy this estateor were you just saving?
A I think we have experienced periods of time where one could not get everything for money. First of all, one could not get labor for money. That has nothing to do with it; it was impossible to get labor.
Q Yes. Now, were the conditions at that time that in order for a man to acquire either a garden plot, or an estate which is not a garden plot, he had to show his ability as a farmer to handle that line? That was the rule, was it not?
A I have said already that in general one had to see that no land should be lost for production. Therefore, it had to be seen that one cultivated the land, or had people that could do that.
Q Yes, and so you stated in your letter that you were from a family of Salzburg farmers, is that right?
A Yes, that is right.
Q That would indicate your qualifications to farm it as an agriculturist, would it not - some qualification?
A I believe that would be jumping at conclusions, because that would only mean that I had a special interest and a special inclination for agricultural things.
Q Yes.
AApart from that, at my age I could not do much agricultural work any longer.
Q But I think we agreed very early in this cross-examination that it was true that your father was a merchant.
A Yes.
Q Yes.
A To make that clear, I am a descendant of an old Salzburg family which, in the 18th century, for religious reasons, was chased out of the Salzburg country and settled in the East of the German Reich.
My ancestors, however, were farmers in the Salzburg land.
Q Yes. Now, Dr. Schlegelberger, here is a letter of the 4th of April 1944, signed by Lammers and addressed to you, in which it says that " the Fuehrer has decided to be of assistance to you in the planned acquisition of the agricultural estate." You didn't find it necessary to use this hundred thousand Reichsmarks for that, or did you ever acquire the estate?
A I have already said that I had sufficient money.
Q Did you get the estate that you asked Hitler to help you get?
A No; no. I did not acquire it; unfortunately, not.
Q But the arrangements had been made end Hitler had agreed that you could get it, yest? So Dr. Lammers writes you.
A The last thing I heard about that matter was that letter which you just put to me of the 4th of April 1944.
Q Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask a question right there?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Surely.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q I don't quite understand you. You said that you were given a hundred thousand Reichsmarks. You did not return the instrument; you did not give it back?
A I put that money in the bank; I did not return it.
Q Was it in the form of a check when you received it?
A In the form of a check, yes , sir.
Q And you deposited it in the bank?
A Yes.
Q And in the letter of 14 January 1944, addressed to the Fuehrer, you refer to the fact that you would like to use this endowment. What did " this endowment" refer to? The letter of 14 January.
A Yes, I am just looking for it.
Q Did "this endowment" mean the hundred thousand Reichsmarks?
A I would also use this hundred thousand Reichsmarks, then, for the real estate deal.
Q That is what you meant to say in the letter?
A That is what I meant to say, but Mr. President, may I add this; in order to make sure that there will not be any misunderstanding? That was written in order to get Hitler interested in the whole matter.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q Doctor, I would like to go back , now, to Prosecution Exhibit No. 75, which is Document NG-102, English Document Book 1-C , and it begins at page 46, or rather - I am sorry - it begins at page 43 in the English and 46 in the German.
Briefly that was the series of letters and correspondence beginning in May 1942, which contains your proposed method of handling clemency matters after Hitler's speech of April 26, 1942. Do you remember?
A Yes, it is a question of confirming the sentences.
Q Yes. On May 6, 1942, you wrote Dr. Lammers --addressed the letter the Reich Minister Dr. Lammers:
"Dear Sir:
"During our last conversation, I already told you that I intended to propose to the Fuehrer the introduction of a confirmation of judgments passed; a plan to which you agreed," I am leaving cut a sentence; I don't think it is necessary.
It's in the record here.
"Today I am transmitting to you an open letter to the Fuehrer along with draft of the decree requesting them to the Fuehrer.
"Copies for your files are attached."
Then on the same day, May 6, 1942, you wrote to Hitler, and you started the letter, "My Fuehrer," and you stated, among other things:
"If you, my Fuehrer, could decide by signing the attached draft of a decree to transfer to the Reich Minister of Justice this right of confirmation for cases in which you do not want to decide yourself, the following would be achieved:"
Then it lists a technical analysis of the decree, as you see it. Then I go to the last paragraph of your lettered addressed, "My Fuehrer," cf 6 May, 1942, which roads, in the English Text:
"Therefore I believe that if you, My Fuehrer, will agree with the draft, I could assume the responsibility that the punishment awards of the courts will not lead to complaints any more."
Now that followed the speech of Hitler on April 26, 1943. Do you recall writing that letter?
A Yes.
Q On the 12th of May, 1942, in this same exhibit and document, you write again to Dr. Lammers, and this time you say:
"Dear Reich Minister Dr. Lammers:
"With regard to your request, I am sending you today some material from which I think follows that a Reich Minister of Justice controlling criminal justice cannot dispense with the possibility not to confirm a judgment. I may add that when the draft of the decree was already under way to you, Reichsmarshal Goering explained to me in detail at a visit in Karinhall that he and the sphere of Wehrmacht justices sector Luftwaffe, could only overcome the difficulties of heterogeneous legal administration by this confirmation, and that in his opinion is was definitely necessary to introduce the confirmation also for civil justice."
Then I am going to skip a sentence and I'd like to read the last paragraph of the letter:
"I would be especially grateful to you, dear Reich Minister Lammers, if you would present the matter to the Fuehrer again. I have the hope therewith that if the Fuehrer rejects the present handling of criminal justice, and on the strength of your argument knows that the confirmatory proceeding is the only safe and remedy, he will not withhold this remedy for the Reich Minister of Justice.
"With best wishes and Heil Hitler, "Yours very sincerely, (signed) Dr. Schlegelberger."
As I recall your testimony, it was that Hitler had been very abusive to you in his speech of April, 26, 1942, and that after that you had made up your mind to resign. Is that what you testified to?
A Yes. I have said that I wanted to make it clear whether these attacks were directed against the Administration of Justice, and that in that case I was determined to let matters to a break to withdraw from my office.
Q Now I know that you said in 1941 that Goering; had said to you that he would never forgive you and Dr. Guertner for centralizing justice is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And now when you desired to have a conversation with Goering, would you go to Karinhall or would he come to the Reich Ministry of Justice, as a rule?
A No, no. In such eases when Goering wanted to speak to me, he called me up and asked me to come and see him. Goering at that time dealt with a case in which he wanted to have a legal opinion. That was why he wanted to talk to me. Oh that occasion, we came into that conversation.
Q Did Goering agree to support your plan at this conversation you had with him between May 6th and May 12th, 1942, or do you recall?
A I take the liberty to explain that. I told him what my plan was and he told me. "But that is the only possibility to handle these things, and that I could not get anywhere in my field if I did not have that right of confirmation."
Q Now in May 1942--about that time during May and June 1942-Reichsmarshal Goering would have had the capacity to be a very strong ally, did he not?
A That could be stated in that general way, and new in retrospect I could not state for any particular month because the relations between Hitler and Goering changed continuously. And with Goering it might have been similarly. It depended upon the question in what temper Hitler was met.
Q On about the 8th of May 1942, do you recall receiving some documents or some evidence involving some apparently quite shady transactions of Herbert Goering from Reichsmarshal Hermann Goering?
A I can't imagine what your thinking of. In May '42, transactions by Goering?
Q Well, I will read some of this file and then hand it to you and you may read it. It might help.