Q. Did the fact that he wanted to keep his position -- are there very positive results of this as regards the administration of Justice in Hamburg -- and in particular, in comparison with the condition of other Gaus?
A. I cannot judge the conditions in other Gaus , but I can only say that attacks on the part of the Party, against the Administration of Justice in Hamburg, at least as far as we knew about them, appeared very seldom. That apparently was due to the good relationship of Dr. Rothenberger to Gauleiter Kaufmann.
Q. Did you ever see a board of the stuermer where Striecher's "Stuermer" was posted? Did you ever see that in Hamburg?
A. Yes, I did see them.
Q. When did you see them?
A. Of course, it's very difficult to answer that question. I remember having seen these show boxes, but for how long and from when, I don't know.
Q. You see, witness, you testified then - perhaps, you will remember if I tell you this: that after the seizure of power -- I don't know exactly when -- at Kaufmann's instigation posting the "Stuermer" in public was forbidden. Do you know anything about that?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Did you participate in a meeting in the investigating prison where Dr. Rothenberger gave a speech?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you state something briefly from your memory , witness, about what he said there? Did he speak energetically against the abuses which resulted from the interference of the Gestapo in the interest of the Administration of Justice?
A. As far as I renumber, it was concerned about the action "Schwarzes Corps." The Schwarze Corps had published considerable attacks and named the judges. After the Reich Ministry of Justice had corrected what they had said, they refused to publish these corrections and did not refrain from further aggressive attacks against the Administration of Justice, and to complain that allegedly it did not proceed strongly enough in accordance with the wishes of the National-Socialist Party. Against these attacks in the Schwarze Corps, Dr. Rothenberger at this meeting in the investigating prison objected to and spoke against it, and he stated that he himself was against these attacks by the Schwarze Corps. On the other hand, he made efforts in cooperation with Gauleiter Kaufmann to avert these attacks against the Hamburg Administration of Justice because the Gauleiter was absolutely of the same opinion as Dr. Rothenberger; namely, that these attacks should be disapproved and that the Gauleiter had ordered that the disapproving of legal acts in Hamburg would first be referred to the Gauleiter, so that he and Dr. Rothenberger could clear them up and thereby take the wind out of the sails.
Q. Witness, do you mean to say by that that later as Justice Senator and later as District Court of Appeals President Dr, Rothenberger exercised a very strong and extra-ordinary influence on Kaufmann so that he himself was considered one of the most moderate Gauleiter's in Germany?
A. The reputation of Gauleiter Kaufmann in Hamburg was not a bad one even in non-National Socialist circles, also he had a social attitude and he was not a fanatic. Now when Hamburg surrendered, he saved it from destruction in refusing to defend it to the last man. That Dr. Rothenberger and Gauleiter Kaufmann were very good friends was quite obvious. Neither of them tried to hide it, and in jurist meetings where Dr. Rothenberger was speaking, occasionally Dr. Kaufmann spoke, too, to them; and in the same manner and from the same point of view as Dr. Rothenberger.
Q. Do you recall that at this meeting in the investigating prison where he was speaking against the SS and the Schwarze Corps, Dr. Rothenberger with very notable and strong words concluded the speech; This "boil of puss" has to be removed in order to remove the abuses.
A. I remember that expression.
Q. Witness, to what political movements did you yourself belong in 1933?
A. Before 1933, I was a member of the Democratic, later the Deutsche Staatspartei.
Q. As a member of the Democratic Party, did you have difficulties of a political nature which were quite considerable after 1933; and which entered into your personal sphere?
A. Yes , in my residence -- I live in a cooperative settlement -where I was president of the board, and was removed from that position in 1933. And therefore there were considerable attacks from a political point of view as a consequence of that, even though I remained in my position as judge, even though my position as a judge was contested at that time. I know, for example, that the personnel referent, Dr. Ritter was anxious to see to it that I would be removed from office, but that in this case I can only suppose -- I don't know it for certain. But I assume that Dr. Rothenberger at that time decided in my favor and did not dismiss me, as his personnel referent had desired it. In the settlement where I was living, this political persecution went so far that people got up in meetings and said that they would not rest until I was dismissed from my position as judge, and then in accordance with my duty, I told the personnel referent, Dr. Letz, at that time about these incidents. Dr. Letz, after a further conference, then told me that Dr. Rothenberger had decided to keep me in my position as a judge, but that he did not have the power to protect me as a judge if I would not decide to move away from that community.
Therefore, it was suggested to me that I should move away from that community and I did so. Then Dr. Rothenberger wrote a letter to that community in which he forbade them to make any further attacks my person, and the result of that letter was then also that after I moved political attacks against me from those people ceased.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q Did Dr. Rothenberger let you stay in your office as judge until 1945?
A Yes.
Q You were speaking of Dr. Rothenberger's assistant, Letz. Is that the same Letz who was chief of Division 1 later on in the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A Yes, he is.
Q This witness Letz is at least one of those officials who joined the SS at Dr. Rothenberger's suggestion. Is it known to you that Letz was an SS member?
A I know that before 1933 Dr. Letz was not a Nazi. At least I know that from all his remarks and the conferences and the attitude which he stated at that time. The more did it surprise me that then he was called into the Administration of Justice and then later joined the SS too. What motives were responsible for this or who caused him to do so, I do not know.
Q Was the attitude of Dr. Letz, as far as you knew it, in any way in accordance with the radical concepts of the SS or you state something different?
A No. On the contrary, in my opinion Dr. Letz was a man who never was a follower of the National Socialists in his own mind until the very end. During the war repeatedly I had meetings with Dr, Letz, conferences with him when he was working with the General Command in Hamburg as a captain and I was also in the Military Administration at the General Command in Hamburg. We had official business with each other repeatedly there and on those occasions we also had some political conversations. He knew my political attitude from the past and, therefore, he did not hide his political attitude toward me, either. During these conversations he made very derogatory remarks about National Socialism, especially in view of the entire legal development. He was very pessimistic.
The more did it surprise me that a few weeks later, after these Court.
No. III, Case No. 3.
conversations, that I had with Dr. Letz, he followed Dr. Rothenberger's call, who at that time became Undersecretary, to come to Berlin as Ministerial Director and he complied with this call. I must say that I was so surprised by that that I became suspicious that perhaps Dr. Letz was either not honest toward me in the conversations which he had with me - as one says he could speak one way and the other - or that he followed this call to Berlin without actually having the inner prerequisites in the National Socialist sense for Thierack's Ministry of Justice.
Q Witness, I spoke at that time with Letz because, just as you, I know him too. You know Letz for many years, fifteen years?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I beg your pardon. This was a leading question.
THE PRESIDENT: Limit yourself to questions.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes. I shall repeat the question.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q For how long do you know Dr. Letz?
A Dr. Letz was local court judge as I was even before I entered the Administration of Justice, that is, toward the end of the twenties. From that time on, I know Dr. Letz.
Q Was he an honest and frank person, in your opinion?
MR. KING: One moment, please. Letz was not the subject of the direct examination. This has been the fourth question on Letz and I think it has gone quite beyond the scope.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is sustained. He is not on trial.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q You described the incidents of November, 1933, witness. Did you have any knowledge about the extent of the destruction of other cities?
A No. I know only about Hamburg.
Q Only about Hamburg. Well, where did you make you inquiries and make your feelings, in Hamburg, in November, 1938?
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
A I want in Hamburg over Jungfernstieg, Moenckebergstrasse, at least in the inner city and from there I want to Altona to the main station. In Altona I want there on foot -- that is a considerable distance -- together with a friend. Both of us were quite engaged and excited about this whole affair and for that reason we took that long walk and on that walk we made the findings which I described before.
Q Is it correct that the population was of the opinion that these incidents were provoked?
AAs far as I could form a judgment about the opinion of the population at that time, the population absolutely rejected these pogroms and thought they were horrible and under no conditions did the population doubt that this was a Goebbels' action which ha had instigated and staged on the basis of these Paris incidents in order to document the disappointment in that way in order to continue the Jewish problem.
Q Do you know whether any persons were hurt in the course of these excesses against the Jews?
A I don't know anything about that.
Q Thus you did not hear about it either that death or serious mistreatments occurred?
A No. This action occurred during the night, that is, at the time when the stores were not guarded and any Jewish persons could hardly have been present.
Q Yes. Thank you vary much. Witness, you were speaking about District Court Director Ruetter before. Was he a man who, as an old Party member, made efforts to discredit other people and in that way to make a position for himself in the Administration of Justice?
A I personally have to be somewhat careful in my judgment of Dr. Ruetter because I said already before that ha was my political opponent and made efforts to remove me from my office. Thus it might easily look as though I wanted to express my dislike of Dr. Ruetter in Court No. III, Case No. 3.some judgment of him and that is far from my intentions.
Q Please leave out of account any personal animosity that might exist and make a judgment as though you were Mr. X.
A I shall make efforts to do so. Dr. Ruetter was regarded as not a very able jurist but already before he had apparently been active in the Party and in spite of the prohibition he was a member of the Party and now he tried to exploit this so-called old fighter quality for his own personal interests and acted in a very non-professional way in order to express it somewhat mildly.
Q Is it correct that Dr. Rothenberger removed Dr. Ruetter very soon from Hamburg because he could not work together with him?
A That was not secret in the Administration of Justice that Dr. Ruetter could not work together with Dr. Rothenberger because Dr. Ruetter was not capable and, of course, Dr. Rothenberger, in regard to the business for which he had employed Dr. Ruetter, needed a more capable person than Dr. Ruetter. To what extent that was due to political differences I do not know because Dr. Ruetter was, after all an older Party fighter than Dr. Rothenberger and to what extent these political matters were of importance in that I cannot judge.
Q Witness, can you say that any old Party member was in Dr. Rothenberger 's entourage in the Administration of Justice or among the judges at the higher courts, that is, for example, at the District Court of Appeal?
A I know that during the first time Dr. Rothenberger called Dr. Schaefer into the Administration of Justice he was an old Party fighter.
Q May I interrupt you here? What kind of a personality was this Schaefer, in your opinion?
THE PRESIDENT: We want these characterizations of persons, whose names have been incidentally mentioned, exceedingly brief because they are not directly in issue here at all. You can characterize him in a few words if you are able.
A I cannot make any statement About Schaefer's personality anyhow Court No. III, Case No. 3.because I didn't know him well enough.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q What personalities were among the presidents of the District Courts of Appeal from the political point of view? Were they old fighters?
AAmong the senate presidents of the District Court of Appeal there were, in my opinion, no old fighters at all because in the Administration of Justice altogether old fighters could hardly be, because until 1933 there was a strick prohibition, at least in Hamburg, against judges or civil servants being members of the NSDAP and I personally know that I, as expert for officials in medium grades, still at the beginning of 1933 had to remove an inspector of justice temporarily from his position because it came out that he had been a member of the NSDAP.
Q Witness, do you remember a Bammel Case which you had to decide as a judge?
A Yes, I do.
Q Can you describe to the Court what kind of a personality Bammel was?
MR. KING: I object to that.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I withdraw that question.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q A final question, witness. I submit a collection of documents to you and please look to see whether it is a copy from your files from the District Court of Appeals. I want to submit this document to you and I ask you to look at Paragraph 5 of this document.
A I do not know this document. From the signature of this document I can see that it was certified by one of my senior inspectors of justice at the District Court of Appeal, so that it is copies from former files of the District Court of Appeal and now it was certified by this Justiz Oberinspector as a true copy. But I do not know from what volume of the files this compendium is and, therefore, it is very Court No. III, Case No. 3.difficult for me to make any detailed Statements about this collection of documents because I do not have the entire files from which it was copies.
Q I shall describe this document more closely. I shall later offer it in a supplementary volume to my documents. Witness, can you state first of all quite generally only whether this is a collection of material regarding abuses which were caused in order to determine abuses that had been occasioned by the interference of the Gestapo?
A That is evident from the entire context. It concerns criticisms in the Stuermer and then later here in the Schwarze Corps, criticisms of measures taken by the Administration of Justice which are apparently laid down in this collection of documents and critically elucidated.
Q Is it correct, on the page before you, concretely, the jurisdiction of the court against Jews, if they were asked to evacuate the places they were renting was criticized?
MR. KING: I should like to inquire what page Judge Buhl is now looking at. Dr. Wandschneider seems to know, but as far as I know, the Prosecution, and the Bench has not been informed.
THE PRESIDENT: You may identify the page to which you refer.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q What page is it, witness?
A The page is not listed here, not numbered here. That is Page 4 Roman Numeral I, but the pagination is not continuous and then Page 2 is shown to me here under Roman Numeral II. The others are not marked.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess at that time until 1:30.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q Have you read this document through during the recess?
A I have read it through in the meantime, and I have found that a number of Jewish names are listed here; Jews who after they had served their terms for race violations had been taken into protective custody.
Q Is there any criticism exercized?
A Their names are listed, and at the end it says that no decisions have been made as yet about the time they are going to be kept in protective custody.
Q Witness, and now my last question. I want to ask you again about the prison at Fuhlsbuettel. Was the police prison of which you have spoken under the administration of justice or not?
A I cannot tell you for certain because at that time I no longer had anything to do with the administration of the prison, but I am inclinced to assume that the police prison had been removed from the group of prisons which were under the administration of justice because the administration of justice had nothing to do with that police prison or with any other police prison in Hamburg.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Your Honor, I would now like to introduce this document for the purpose of identification; it is going to be translated and I shall introduce it properly when it has been translated. I should like to hand it to the Prosecution today so that they have an opportunity to examine it. I do not have my documents with me and unfortunately I can't tell you now what exhibit number I would like to have reserved for it. I shall be able to tell you this afternoon, because this afternoon I intend to introduce my other remaining documents. I have now finished my cross examination of this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please.
MR. KING: Before Dr. Wandschneider departs from the stand, I should like to have him identify the document somewhat more fully than he has.
I am afraid that with my limited knowledge of German I shall not be able to identify it, and if Dr. Wandschneider can tell us a little more about what it is so that we will know later on when it is introduced, I should appreciate it.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: This document comes from a collection of files from the Hanseatic Court of Appeal.
THE PRESIDENT: Who do you claim signed this - the witness, or Dr. Rothenberger?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: This is a collection of documents which as such has not been signed. It is a collection of material which has been taken from a file volume. The document is signed and certified by a justices inspectore.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all very interesting, except that we don't know yet who is supposed to have made up the documents which are no doubt duly certified to here.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Mr. President, may I point out that this document is a collection of material which comes from a file volume of the Hanseatic District Court of Appeal at Hamburg.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that. How, let us assume that it is a very creditable or a very discreditable document. To whom do we give the credit or the discredit unless we know who is responsible for the document?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: The official inspector from the district from the Hanseatic Court of Appeal is responsible because it is he who signed for it and he who certified that these files came from a file volume from the Hanseatic Court of Appeal as material for the subject which I have mentioned here.
THE PRESIDENT: You may mark it for identification, but we don't yet understand - but we have not heard any answer to my question.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I shall try to give you further explanations, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: We will reserve Exhibit Ho. 78, Rothenberger 78 for this document.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the document be marked for identification now 78 - so that we can tell what document it is when it is offered.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any redirect?
MR. KING: I have only one question concerning the identity of this document. It consists of approximately thirty-four pages of material. My question is, and this is rather of Dr. Wandschneider than of the witness, how are we able to -- how shall we be a ole to know when the document is submitted that it is the same document which was shown the witness this morning, or
THE PRESIDENT: I can give you the answer to that. Take the document to the Secretary General and let him mark it for identification as Exhibit 78, Rothenberger.
MR. KING: I have no questions on redirect to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: This is Exhibit 78 only for identification; it is not received in evidence at this time.
The witness may be excused.
MR. KING: Before calling the next witness, I would like to offer for introduction into evidence documents previously marked for identification. First of these is NG-2216, which has been previously identified, for which an exhibit number has been reserved, Exhibit No. 587. I have copies in English and German for distribution at this time, and I offer the Document NG-2216 as Exhibit 587.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. KING: The document NG-2215 was marked for identification yesterday and the Exhibit No. 588 reserved for this document. I am now able to and do offer this document in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 588 is received.
WILHELM OEHLCKERS, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE HARDING:
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 MR. KING:
Q Doctor, will you give your name to the Court? Perhaps you had better spell it,Doctor, so that the record will be clear.
A O-h-l-c-k-e-r-s; my first name is Wilhelm.
Q Can you give the Court your present position; your present position and address?
AAt the present time I am the president of the Surrogate Court at the Hamburg Court of Appeals. I am a resident in Hamburg, Kirchwerder, Haussteig No. 191.
Q Doctor, will you tell us, please, what positions you held in the Hamburg judicial administration from 1933 until the capitulation?
A In 1933 I was an assessor with the prosecution in Hamburg; in November, 1933 I spent two months with the local court at Hamburg; and from 1934 until 1937 I worked at the district court in Hamburg; from 1938 until 1945 I was again at the local court in Hamburg. In 1945 the military government in September dismissed me; and in January, 1947 the Military Government reinstated me.
Q You were a member of the NSDAP, were you?
A Yes.
Q When did you join the party?
A In May, 1933.
Q Will you explain the circumstances, please, under which you came have been dismissed at any time.
Conditions were very difficult and the pressure which was exerted on us assessors was such that we were faced with the alternative of either losing our position or joining the party.
Q And, as a result of this fear you joined the party for security of office?
A Only for that reason.
Q During your career as a judge in Hamburg, up until the end of the war, did
A Until the end of the war I could not join the army; I had an operation and because of that I could not become a soldier. For most of the war I worked as a
Q Doctor, I hadn't completed my question. I think you misunderstood. I was about to ask you this question. During your career as judge in Hamburg, and until the end of the war, did it ever come to your attention, officially or otherwise, that there were certain cases of sentences against high party officials and friends of high party officials in Hamburg that were quashed?
A Well, what happened was that an attempt was made; the formal prerequisites were observed that is, but if the defendant was a member of the Nazi Party, very frequently, and usually successfully, an attempt was made either to have a somewhat more lenient sentence passed than would have happened to an ordinary citizen; or, not to have a punishment at all.
Q Well, Doctor, I want to inquire of you as to the facts in certain of these cases. In 1936 or 1937 do you recall a case brought before the criminal senate against certain SA men for breaking into an inn in Hamburg which was the property of a socialist?
A Yes.
Q And after breaking in demolished the fixtures? Will you please, if you can, explain the circumstances of this case as you recall the facts?
A Yes, the man was an inn keeper in Warmbeck, part of Hamburg. He was a socialist, and that whole district was known as a socialist district. He was suspicious to the national socialists for his politics, and one day the political leaders of that area, under the leadership of the Ortsgruppeneleiter, and with the knowledge of the Kreisleiter, entered the inn and smashed up all the furniture. The inn keeper informed the prosecutor and the prosecutor filed an indictment; the case was indicted before the penal chamber five.
I was an associate judge at the Penal Chamber 7 at the Hamburg District Court. The presiding judge was a man whose general reputation was that he never allowed himself to he persuaded to any other point of view. We passed on the indictment, as we were obliged to by law, to the defendant. A time of about a fortnight elapsed and then the defendant had to make a statement in answer to the indictment; all during that period the administration of the district court of appeal phoned us up and told us that the files were to he sent immediately to the district court of appeal because the Reichsstatthalter in Hamburg intended to make an application to the Reich Ministry of Justice that proceedings were to be quashed. I discussed the matter with the director Schmeyer, the presiding judge, and we agreed that we would keep the district court of appeal waiting until that period of a fortnight had elapsed and then we could make a decision to open the trial, and in that case time indictment couldn't simply have been withdrawn. We were told again to hand over the files; we didn't pay any attention, and when the period of the fortnight had elapsed, we decided to open the trial, and we sent the files to the district court of appeal. We never saw those files again.
Q And, so far as you know, no action was brought against the perpetrators of this crime?
A No, as far as I know, never.
Q Now, Doctor, do you recall the facts of the case Karutz? May I say before you answer that question that a document concerning this case was marked for identification yesterday is NG-2283. I think perhaps before we go into the case I can distribute it so that the Court and Defense Counsel may follow it as you describe it.
MR. KING: I offer the Document NG-2283 which was identified yesterday, as Exhibit 590.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. KING: May the record show that I am temporarily handing the original to the witness.
Q You recall the facts of the Karutz case as the one referred to the document which is now before, do you not?
A I remember the Karutz case particularly well.
Q Were you the competent judge in that case?
A Yes, I was at the local court at the time, and I was the person who would have tried the case if an indictment had been made.
Q Will you please briefly explain it - or, give us the facts of the case and explain why an indictment was never brought against the accused or the individuals who should have been accused?
A Karutz was a referent in the propaganda Ministry. During the winter of 1938-1939 a policeman had found him outside a restaurant in Hamburg. Karutz was drunk and about to enter his car. The policeman told him you are in no condition, you are not fit to drive a car; don't enter that car. Without answering at all, Karutz hit the policeman in the face and it was such a strong blow that it threw the policeman down on the ground. Karutz, with the aid of passers-by, was then taken to the police station where he was very excited, and insulted the policeman on duty, and he was charged with having offered serious resistance to a policeman on duty. According to my observations and my experiences, he should have been sentenced to at least three months imprisonment. In this case the police chief interfered; he more or less asked Karutz to pay a. fine of 150 marks; if I remember rightly, it says 150 marks here; and he told him to pay that to the NSV; the police chief more or less asked the prosecution to discontinue proceedings against Karutz because this was a trifling affair. At the time the law was such that if proceedings were discontinued, because the offense had been trifling, the judge had to give his agreement and I refused to agree to that and said that a referent at the propaganda ministry and an old party member should not be treated any differently from the way we treated any ordinary citizen.
Therefore, I thought he ought to go to prison for several months and I said this was not a trifling case, so I refused to have the proceedings discontinued. For a few months, I believe for three months, I heard nothing of the whole matter. Then, the files were submitted to me again, and again I was asked to discontinue the matter because it was a trifling offense. Further investigations were made and these further investigations brought to light facts which were even more against the defendant and even more in favor of the policeman. Therefore, once again I refused to have the matter dropped because it was a trifling offense, and this time I wrote a statement and gave my reasons; this was a curious case, and I called it a curious case in that it did not happen - what I want to say is the prosecution complained to the penal chamber a.bout my decision and the penal chamber, that was Penal Chamber No. 3, and its presiding judge was a particularly confirmed national socialist, and he revoked my decision, and then the whole matter was discontinued on account of it having been a. trifling offense. Afterwards -
Q Witness, may I interrupt you a moment. Did Letz get in touch with you in regard to this case?
A Yes.
Q What did he ask you to do?
A Letz asked me when the matter had been dealt with, that is to say after the proceedings had been discontinued, to go to see him at the district court of appeal, and I talked to him a few days before war broke out. Letz told me, well, you know actually you are quite right, and. Senator Rothenberger also is of the same opinion, but think of the prestige, and that word prestige was actually used; well, you have to remember that it is the prestige of the police president that is at stake; that was why we intervened, and the presiding judge of the penal chamber then was in favor of interfering contrary to your self, and that was why he discontinued proceedings in that case; that isn't going to happen again, but this time we had to do it.
