THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: May I continue with a brief re-direct examination of the witness Becher.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q. Dr. Becher, I was just coming back to talk about Dr. Rothenberger' s letter to Freisler which showed that Dr. Rothenberger objected to the limited use of the Special Courts, and he protested against an over-loading of the Special Courts. I now want to ask you to extend your remarks. Did he fight that otherwise too?
A. Yes. That was discussed repeatedly. The prosecution from time to time used to file almost all matters with the Special Courts. Therefore, the Special Court was over-burdened to such an extent and the other divisions, that is the penal chambers, did not have very much to do, and so an impossible condition arose. Therefore, currently again and again it was discussed and we judges also told our president that it was our wish that actually only those cases of the most serious criminality should be brought before the Special Courts, and typical war crimes.
Q. Witness, the prosecutor has put the letter of the 36th of September 1938, from Dr. Rothenberger to the General Public Prosecutor, to you. In this letter Reichsstatthalter Kauffmann asks for a report and information regarding indictments before the Special Court. Do you know that the Reichstatthalter after the outbreak of war, in his capacity as Reich Defense Commissar, had a right to obtain information about these matters?
A. No, I am not familiar with that.
Q. In your farewell address when Dr. Rothenberger left for Berlin you were speaking about the good cooperation between the Party and the Administration of Justice. Whose interest did you in this cooperation regard as being safeguarded primarily when you said this in your farewell address -- the interest of the Party or the Administration of Justice?
A. Naturally the interest of the Administration of Justice.
Q. You mentioned the relationship of Dr. Rothenberger to a man like Rielke in Hamburg. May I ask you briefly what Dr. Rothenberger's relationship was to men like Frank and Freisler? You surely are very well informed about this.
A. Dr. Frank was, after all, until 1942 the chief of the NS Lawyer's League and the chief of the Reich Legal Office. I know from numerous remarks that Dr. Rothenberger did not like Dr. Frank's personality because of his vain, and I would like to say show-off manner; he did not like it at all. Dr. Frank was a man who could speak fluently. but usually there was nothing behind it; the same was the case with Dr. Rielke. Dr. Rielke was an intimate friend of Dr. Frank, and through the whole manner of his behavior in Hamburg he had fallen into disfavor with everybody, also because of his vanity, etc.
Q. That is enough, witness. You mentioned that you hardly knew the law against Jews and Poles, and that as far as you knew it was not important in Hamburg. Was that due to the fact that there were no Polish workers in Hamburg because it was a big city?
A. One has to assume so. On the other hand, I believe that there were Polish workers in Hamburg--
JUDGE HARDING: Dr. Wandschneider, I have a question with relation to this matter. You speak of many cases in which permits were granted to represent Jews in cases in Hamburg. Were those cases only civil cases, or was that true of criminal cases?
A. They were without exception civil cases.
JUDGE HARDING: Thank you.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you, I have no further questions to this witness. I have concluded the examination of this witness. May I then call-
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. I would like to be sure I understood. You mean that the decree which I asked you about before, with reference to permits to represent Jews, did not apply to criminal cases?
A. The decree as such referred to all cases. In the case of criminal law, however, if a Jew was indicted before a court, the court appointed an official defense counsel for the Jew, and in that case the Jews no longer needed a permit, so that in practice such cases did not exist.
Q. But the decree made no exception?
A. No, the decree did not make any exception.
Q. Thank you.
BY JUDGE HARDING:
Q. Were there Jews tried in criminal cases in Hamburg?
A. Yes, there were.
Q. Over what period of time?
A. Well, I can only tell you from my own experience that perhaps during the course of the war, as long as I was in charge of the Special Court, I had Jews before court in three or four cases during the entire six years. They were all cases of violations against the war time economy.
Q. Did you try Jews after the decree against Jews and Poles had been issued -- in Hamburg?
A. I am unable to tell you that because I don't know when it was promulgated; actually I don't know it.
Q. Do you know any-- Did you try any Jews in Hamburg after -- or in the Hamburg area -- after the war -- after October of 1939?
A. Yes. During the time I was presiding judge of the Special Court, and that was during the war.
Q. Well, when you tried these Jews, you say it was your opinion that the law against Jews and Poles didn't apply to them?
A. In my opinion it did not. They were Jews who were natives of Hamburg - residents of Hamburg - and if I remember correctly, this law against Jews and Poles applied only to the people from the Eastern territories, but in my cases they were Jews who had always lived in Hamburg.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you. Your Honor, I have no further questions.
I have concluded my examination. May I now call the witness Dr. Hartmann.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
MR. KING: Your Honor, I should like to introduce or I should like to have identified two of the documents which we discussed with this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you need this witness for this purpose?
MR. KING: I think not -- unless Your Honor wishes to have him here for this purpose. The first of these is NG-2215 -- excuse me, NG-2216, for which we would like the Exhibit No. 587 reserved, and the next one is NG-2215, for which we would like the Exhibit No. 588 reserved.
THE PRESIDENT: The documents may be marked for identification and the numbers reserved.
HANS HARTMANN, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE HARDING:
You will stand and 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.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER (Attorney for the Defendant Rothenberger):
Q Witness, please state the date of your birth and your personal data.
A I was born on the 28th of April, 1908, in Hamburg. I studied in Freiburg, Geneva, Munich and in Hamburg. In 1930 I passed the referendar examination, and in 1934 the assessor examination with excellent. In 1935 I passed my doctor's examination; and in the beginning of 1935 I was appointed local court judge; and at the end of 1939 judge at the district court of appeal.
Q When did you enter the party? -- And, did you belong to any affiliated organizations of the party?
A I entered the party in May, 1933; and in the SS November 1933.
Q What were the reasons for your entering the party?
A I wanted to become a judge, and without being a member of the party or one of the affiliated organizations of the party, due to the practice followed at that time, that was impossible. The appointment of judges was undertaken at my time by the Reichstatthalter personally, and nobody was promoted to be a judge -- none of the younger jurists at least -- who did not belong to the party or one of its affiliated organizations. A special reason for joining the SS particularly I did not have at that time. There was no difference between the SS and the SA; one could say at the most that at that time the SS had a somewhat better reputation.
Q Please describe your career in the SS briefly.
A Until 1937, beginning of 1938, I did the usual service in the SS; in particular this was obvious what was at hand as legal counselor. At the beginning of 1938 I participated in maneuvers with the armed forces, and from then on I no longer did any SS service in particular, not during the entire course of the war.
Q Witness, may I interrupt you. The official rank is the only thing of importance here, the official rank which you held when you entered your active service.
A When I ended my active service I had the official rank of Rottenfuehrer; that is the second lowest rank. Then, in 1939 I was promoted to the rank which I had achieved with the Wehrmacht, that is of Unteroffizier, sergeant; without having done any service I was promoted to Unterscharfuehrer in the SS; and then in 1943 -- in the meantime I had become a first lieutenant in the army -- I was automatically promoted to Untersturmfuehrer, the equivalent rank of a first lieutenant.
Q How did you contact Dr. Rothenberger?
A In May, 1934 when I was taking my assessor examination, the oral examination, Dr. Rothenberger entered the room surprisingly, and for a while he listened to my oral examination; and then he asked me to come to see him, and took me over to the service of the administration of justice; and, that was after all in accordance with my wish.
Q Did Dr. Rothenberger take you over into the administration of justice because of your excellent examination results?
A Yes, that was my impression; that must have been the decisive reason for it.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Wandschneider, it comes to our attention that the witness did not state his name. For the purpose of the record -we know who he is -- but let him state his name for the purpose of the record; let him state his name so that the record will be complete.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I beg your pardon, your Honor, that I did not ask him that question.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q Witness, please for the record state your name.
A My name is Hans Hartmann.
Q Witness, at that time, due to your cooperation for many years, you could form a judgment about Dr. Rothenberger's principles of selection in his personnel policy. Can you form an opinion whether he promoted or favored party members in promotions in the administration of justice?
A One has to differentiate here between the young, members of lower courts and the leading position which of course were held by older gentlemen. As far as the young picture lawyers were concerned, Dr. Rothenberger always selected those good people from each year; he tried to obtain these who had proved by their examinations that they were above average. I am, for example, thinking of two people who passed the examination with excellent. They were Doppler and Stoeder; and I am thinking of others who passed with very good. They were, for example, Vogatski and Hasche, and von Wedel and Bartsch.
Q Thank you, witness.
A In this selection of these young, future lawyers, Dr. Rothenberger, I should like to say, did not attach the slightest importance as to whether they had joined the party before or after 1933. For him it was decisive what their accomplishments had been and their personalities. I recall of the young jurists actually, at least those I have just mentioned, only one who had joined the party already before 1933, and that was Deppler who passed his examination with auszeichnung - excellent. As far as the older jurists arc concerned, who held positions in the administration of justice at Hamburg, I can state with certainty that in the time of 1934 when I came to the administration of justice and in 1942, in that interim -- that was the time when Dr. Rothenberger went to Berlin -- in 1942 -- not a single old party member held an important position in the administration of justice of Hamburg. I could state the names in detail, but I shall limit myself to saying that, for example, the president of the district court of appeal, the local court president, and the president of the district court, the general public prosecutor, and the senior public prosecutor never had been old party members; and that in the leading positions of the Hamburg administration of justice, I am here thinking of the vice president, the personnel referent and the person in charge of personnel matters, and medium grade officials, no old party member ever hold these offices.
Q Thank you. Did Dr. Rothenberger ever send you to England?
A Yes. That was at the end of 1935. I studied English jurisprudence. I also published a book about English jurisprudence, and I had received the praise of the international law association for this book. Moreover, my wife is an English woman. For those reasons in 1935 Dr. Rothenberger selected me. There was an active interchange between young German and young English jurists; and Kenan Anson, Master of the Temple, was in charge of it on the English side; and Dr. Rothenberger on the German side. The main purpose of my visit was -- at least that was the mission which Dr. Rothenberger gave me -- that I should interest myself in the position of the English judge in practice and should inform myself about it.
Q Thank you. For how long did you work for Dr. Rothenberger, and in what different functions?
A I worked for Dr. Rothenberger from May, 1934 until May, 1938; and then again from September, 1942 until the end of 1943. My function in Hamburg then lay in working with civil cases. I am a civil judge only, and did not concern myself with criminal law at all. For instance, I worked with the complaints in civil and commercial cases, and gave expert opinions in difficult legal problems for the Hamburg Senate. The president of the district court of appeal was something like a syndicus, a legal advisor of the Hamburg senate for difficult legal problems.
Q Witness, you came about one year after the seizure of power to Dr. Rothenberger in the administration of justice of the land. What was the situation regarding the administration of justice at that time?
A When in 1934 I came to the administration of justice, Dr. Rothenberger was sometimes of a difficult situation. The Reichstatthalter Kauffmann, who, however in the course of time did prove to be a moderate personality, and was recognized as such as an old party member, was still closely tied to his old comrades, and I gained the impression as though it was not possible for him from the very beginning to withdraw from their influence altogether. For example, I am thinking of this: At that time Hamburg lawyers appeared before the courts even if they were not party members, and in all seriousness they were of the opinion that as far as criminal deeds of old party members, the regular courts should actually not be competent because the judges had not cooperated in the conquering of this state, and, therefore, they could not see the psychology of an old fighter.
Therefore, I gained the impression that for Dr. Rothenberger, that during the first time it was rather difficult to convince the Reichsstatthalter of the necessity of an objective administration of justice. Concrete difficulties, for example, arose from the fact that old Party members who had committed some offense, tried, in regard to the prosecution before the courts of their offenses through their connections with their old Party friend, Kauffmann, to get off more easily.
In many cases Dr. Rothenberger succeeded in preventing such attempts, but during the first period, when he himself did not yet have the possibility to influence Kauffmann in that manner, as a person and privately as he was able to do later on, it did happen, as far as I remember, that he did not always succeed to prevent Kauffmann from complying with such wishes of old Party members.
Q What was Rothenberger's relationship to the Party altogether and to old Party members? Did they value him highly or not?
A It is my impression that Rothenberger's relationship with Kauffmann was good, but in the circles of old Party members, that is, the leading Hamburg national socialists, Rothenberger was never really recognized fully. I, myself, worried about this and wondered what this was really due to.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. Counsel and the witness must realize that this testimony is altogether cumulative; that we have heard the great mass of evidence along the same line and, therefore, it should be brief.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Your Honor, I shall now go over to the important questions. Thank you very much.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q Can you say something about Dr. Rothenberger's attitude to the Jewish problem? What attitude does he display in Hamburg?
A Well, I know, of course, Dr. Rothenberger rather well and I believe I may say that he is not an anti-Semite by nature. I gather this from the fact that, for example, I never privately heard him make a derogatory or angry remark about the Jews.
I also listened to him have his lectures and this problem wan principally never touched upon in his lectures. I was under the impression that the whole affair was somewhat unpleasant to him, perhaps. As far as his personnel policy was concerned, he left half-Jews, that is, of mixed race, remain in their office. I am thinking of Kauffmann, Rittmeyer, and others. As far as full-Jews were concerned, I know that many of them were still holding offices in 1935, that is, at the time when in the rest of the Reich Jewish Judges had already been dismissed; and as far as the treatment of the Jews who had been dismissed is concerned, I know that they were pensioned and furthermore, I know -- and I know this for certain - in four particular cases, that at Dr. Rothenberger's initiative the pensions were transferred to foreign countries in spite of the fact that the foreign exchange was very difficult during the last years.
Q How did you become Dr. Rothenberger's assistant after he was appointed under-secretary?
AAt that time I was a soldier with the anti-aircraft unit and Dr. Rothenberger, after he was appointed under-secretary, asked me to come to see him. They gave him small farewell celebration in the Buergerkeller and he there described his program. I believe that is known here.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you don't have to testify about that.
A (Continuing) Afterwards, when I was surprised by his offer that I should accompany him to Berlin, I discussed this program with him and I told him, "Do you believe that a man who had handled the Potemka murders in this way, who, on the 30 June 1934, had initiated those incidents, who did participate in the events of November, 1938, and who now in April, 1942, gave such a speech, has any understanding at all for an independent judge?" Thereupon Rothenberger replied: "I discussed the problem with him for five hours and I am convinced with utmost certainty that he does have this understanding."
Q Can you tell us anything as to what Dr. Rothenberger told you after the discussion of September 1942 in Shitomir? You know that this is an important discussion in this trial here.
A The conference of Shitomir was, of course, the decisive one because it took place with our main opponent, SS leader Himmler. Therefore, I tried to find out some details about it. At first I did not succeed.
One evening - it may have been toward the end of September -- I was sitting with Dr. Rothenberger and Ministerial Director Letz in the Hotel Esplanada and there I began to ask about it and I put the individual questions: What will happen now? Will these attacks against the Administration of Justice in the Schwarze Corps stop now? Will the arrest stop now after acquittals and after the term has been served, and, above all, does the prosecution remain within the sphere of the Administration of Justice?
Dr. Rothenberger answered yes to all these question. I was, however, under the impression that in spite of that he was not very happy about this result himself or about this conversation.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you, what was the date of this conversation, approximately?
THE WITNESS: The exact date I cannot longer tell you, but I do know that it was approximately ten days after Shitomir, that is, the end of September, 1942.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q And where was this discussion?
A In the Hotel Esplanada in the evening.
Q In Berlin?
A Yes. He told me, however, no more about these matters and I, myself, did not dare to urge him on. When I then left the room together with Letz, I asked, "What is the matter with Rothenberger? After all, we should be rather satisfied." Letz told me, "Well, I believe with Thierack it will become very difficult because in a confidential discussion with Himmler at his wish - that is, Himmler's wish he promised Himmler penitentiary inmates for his armament industries."
We then discussed this question and I, myself, added, "Well, that is not so bad really, because that is not an illegal arrest, that is not connected with it because the penitentiary sentences are not counted during war time anyhow and whether these people are sitting in concentration camps or in a penitentiary, that is not so important for these people actually."
Letz replied, "Well, that is all right, but in that first discussion Rothenberger wanted to make no concessions in this first discussion, especially to Himmler and what Thierack did is a concession."
Q Did Rothenberger or Letz, with whom you spoke at the last, men mention anything to you about a plan of extermination through work and about the fact that Jews, Poles and Ukranians, and so forth, would be transferred to the police?
A No. That point did not come up for discussion at all between Letz and me either, not by Rothenberger at all. Of course, because he didn't even mention the previous point to me.
Q When did you first hear about the subject of extermination through work and of Jews and Poles and so forth?
A I heard about at myself when I, myself, was interned and this news was published in the press. For example, I know for sure that in the Ministry where we, of course, discussed various problems, this subject was never discussed, at least not by those people with whom I spoke.
Q Did Dr. Rothenberger ever have knowledge about Division 5 and 15 and the lectures in those divisions?
A No, I can assure you with absolute certainty that a Referent of Department 5 or 15 never reported to Dr. Rothenberger nor that an incident from those divisions went through my hand.
Q At that time you were adjutant of Rothenberger from 1942 until the end?
A Yes; and all the memoranda that we received from the divisions went through my hands.
Q Do you know anything about an SD inquiry which Himmler instituted against Dr. Rothenberger in the fall of 1942?
A Yes. I heard about that at the time and I still recall that the wording was something like this: "Here we are of the opinion that Rothenberger is not properly suited for this office because, so far, he worked only in a small district. I know also that Rothenberger tried at that time to cause Thierack, on account of this peculiar SD inquiry, to act on his behalf with Himmler, but Thierack did not do so.
Q Witness, accompanying Dr. Rothenberger you took part in his visit to concentration camp Mauthausen. Will you please describe this visit?
A I remember that visit very well. The course that the day took was like this: In the morning we visited Linz; then the Hermann Goering Works; then Mauthausen; subsequently St. Florian and in the evening Rothenberger delivered a lecture.
Rothenberger told me, before we drove into the camp, "I shall have the possibility quite independent of anybody else and without anybody else's presence to speak to the individual inmates of the concentration camp. You should also try to find an opportunity to listen around a little bit. Let us try and see if the agreement that Himmler made is actually being adhered to." When we had arrived in the camp Dr. Rothenberger took approximately ten different inmates aside and went away so that nobody could listen. He took down their names and shortly before we left the concentration camp we went to the administrative division and Dr. Rothenberger asked to see the files of those people with whom he had spoken and he checked whether any reasons whatsoever could be objected to for which these people had been put into concentration camps.
Of course, I asked him, because I was terribly interested in it myself, and he Court No. III, Case No. III.
answered in those cases no objections can be raised. I recall, for example, one case. He was a dangerous criminal who had already a number of previous convictions because of robberies and he was again caught by the police with tools for breaking into a house.
Q. Did you, in Mauthausen, see any implements which served for extermination or any very serious illegal offenses?
A. No, I did not see them. I would like to add the following: These concentration camps existed for nine years at that time and we, as judges, were of course very much interested in knowing what is going on in these camps. Rumors were current in Germany which said that the conditions there were not always as they should be and for me it was, therefore, especially interesting that finally I had the opportunity, after nine years, to inform myself personally and I availed myself of that opportunity. For example, I also talked to one man and asked him: "Why are you here?" Thereupon he told me: "I do not take up arms against my brother." He was Jehova's Witness who was in a concentration camp because he was a Conscientious Objector.
I even went this far. An SS Leader who was accompanying us, I took him aside and told him this: "Listen, I, myself, am a member of the SS" -- he couldn't tell that because I wasn't wearing the SS uniform -- "What is really going on here? You can tell me that. You don't have to be afraid to tell me that. Is there anything going on here that isn't quite proper?" He laughed and said, "Well, that even you believe atrocity stories I would never have thought." We went about everywhere quite freely and God knows we observed everything closely. That is understandable. Of course, the atmosphere was rather oppressive but it was not more so than it is in the camp where I am sitting now for the past two years. It is always a horrible thing if people are deprived of their liberty and separated from their families.
THE PRESIDENT: You will refrain from dissertating upon the conditions of people who in general are confined. Just limit yourself to a statement of the facts as counsel ask them of you.
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Witness, of course, in your opinion the possibility exists that many matters that existed in the concentration camp you did not see, in order to complete your description.
A. Yes, of course. That is obvious.
Q. All right. That is what I meant. Now, a further question, the following: You went on trips with Dr. Rothenberger and in connection with that trip to Mauthausen afterwards you took other trips with him, did you not? Could you please describe what purpose these trips served?
A. This trip to Mauthausen was part of a larger trip which took us to Vienna, Graz, Klagenfurt, Linz, Wuerzburg, Bamberg and Nurnberg. Wherever we spoke to the presidents of the District Courts of Appeal, it became apparent that serious difficulties with the party existed and in many cases the Gauleiter, with whom Dr. Rothenberger also spoke in each case, tried to achieve it with him that the presidents of the courts concerned would be removed from their office. For example, I am thinking of the president of the District Court of Appeals, Melz in Graz, whom the Gauleiter charged with having too Christian an attitude -- I am thinking of the president of the District Court of Appeals Duerich in Bamburg whom the Gauleiter concerned also wanted absolutely to have removed.
Furthermore, the president of the District Court of Appeals Dietl in Wuerzburg, who also was supposed to be removed from his office and when we came here to Nurmberg, there was such a tense atmosphere between the Gauleiter and the then president of the District Court of Appeals Doebig, that the Gauleiter even refused to organize a meeting for Dr. Rothenberger as long as Doebig was still in office.
Q. Witness, that case is well known. That is to say, we don't have to discuss it any further. I just want to ask you quite generally, did Dr. Rothenberger, in the case of all these differences of opinion between the political offices and the presidents of the District Courts of Appeal, unequivocally toward the Reichstatthalters and the Gauleiters represent the attitude of the Administration of Justice and their interests?
A. In all the cases that have been mentioned Dr. Rothenberger left the presidents of the courts in their office against the wishes of the Gauleiter and he also secceeded in having the Minister of Justice agree to this except for the last case Doebig where Thierack himself then later on gave in to the Gauleiter.
Q. All right. Do you know anything about this, for example, that Ministerial Director Soegelkin, who was described as Public Enemy No. 1 in the Ministry because he had been a pacifist, that he was supposed to be excluded from the Party Chancellory but that Rothenberger wanted to keep him under all conditions?
A. The Soegelkin Case is very well known to me because Soegelkin is a good friend of mine. There was a SD report issued against him which described him rather well, really; but, in accordance with the opinion of that time, it was like this, that under these circumstances he was not tenable for the Ministry of Justice. Thierack, too, wanted to have him removed from the Ministry at that time but Dr. Rothenberger, in this case, acted on behalf of Dr. Soegelkin to such an extent that in the end Thierack also agreed that he should become Ministerial Director in the Ministry.
I also recall a second case where the situation was similar. That was District Court president Hildesheim. There the personnel division of the Party Chancellory, had issued a report in which it complained that the president had participated in the Catholic religious procession on Corpus Christi Day and had carried a candle. Dr. Rothenberger thereupon answered that this was no reason to remove him from office and kept him in office.
Q. Witness, do you know anything about Dr. Rothenberger's attempt to become President of the Reich Supreme Court?
A. Yes; perhaps not directly, but indirectly it was quite apparent. At the beginning of 1943 the salaries of the undersecretary, among others, had been raised and his salary now was higher than that of the president of the Reich Supreme Court. Thereupon, Thierack asked the competent Ministerial Director, "Isn't it possible that the undersecretary can become president of the Reich Supreme Court?" At that time this was in general described as a alander of Rothenberger.
Q. Dr. Hartmann, before you stated that Dr. Rothenberger had nothing to do with Division 15 and its affairs. Can you recall that once he was nevertheless concerned with the technical question whether Engert could be promoted to Ministerial Director, whether there was a TO form?
A. Yes, I recall that. Engert came to the Ministry and the Minister asked Dr. Rothenberger whether Engert could receive the official rank of Ministerial Director even though there was no position open for him in the TO. Dr. Rothenberger discussed that with Thierack.
Q. Dr. Rothenberger stated that due to the extra ordinary difficulties of his office he was thinking about resigning from office.
Did you find out anything about that?
A. Dr. Rothenberger never told me anything about that, but if I now look back I would like to mention the following: Letz, whom I mentioned before, told me in the beginning of May, 1943, when I moved into a new room in Berlin, "Well, if there is any point in doing that, I believe we soon have to pack our bags." That is all I can state on that subject.
Q. Rothenberger himself never told you anything about it?
A. No.
Q. Thank you. Witness, can you comment on the Ploetzensee incident? You know the incident, the executions which took place in September, 1943, and the clemency proceedings which proceeded?
THE PRESIDENT: Are you referring to the accidental killing?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I am referring to the incident where Dr. Rothenberger decided about clemency questions as deputy in September, 1943, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean they were executed by accident?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no evidence to the contrary, as far as that is concerned.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: It is not concerned with those four cases which are clear due to the correspondence which has been submitted, but we are dealing with the general clemency practice which he exercised in the other cases and I only want to ask you, witness, about this general clemency practice and how it came about that there Rothenberger was in charge, who in general had nothing to do with criminal cases.
A. During that particular week Thierack was sick.
He telephoned me and told me, "There are more than 200 people who have been sentenced to death in Ploetzensee. Dr. Rothenberger must decide about the clemency questions before tomorrow morning even if he has to work all night." I informed Dr. Rothenberger about it. The whole matter was extremely unpleasant to him and he immediately told me, "It is out of the question that anyone put time pressure upon me. These questions will be worked over at leisure." And that is how it happened and toward 9:30 in the evening Dr. Rothenberger stopped working, even though not all the cases had been decided. I believe only about 80,
Q. Did he use the next day also in order to decide about the clemency pleas?
A. Yes, the next day further reports were made in this matter.
Q. Did Dr. Rothenberger have anything to do with the Administration of Penalties or the execution?
A. No. Thierack told me expressly that Dr. Rothenberger does not have to worry about the execution.