DIRECT EXAMINATION HANS TIMMERMANN BY MR. KING:
Q Dr. Timmermann, would you state please for the record your full name and your present address?
A Hans Johannes Dietrich Timmermann, born on the 3rd of January 1893 at Hamburg, address Hamburg, Ifflandstrasse 28.
Q Now, Dr. Timmermann, can you tell me what official or judicial position you occupied in Hamburg during the course of the - I withdraw that, from 1933 onward?
A In 1933 I was a Judge with the District Court at Hamburg. At the end of 1937 I was promoted to the position of Director of the District Court. I worked at that time in the penal administration of justice. In 1933 I was a member of the penal chamber and as deputy of the presiding judge was active in that function for a time. Later I continued to work with the penal chamber, also temporarily as a judge with the District Court of Appeals in a penal senate, and after my promotion to the Director of the District Court I was investigating magistrate for a while then in a Penal Chamber as presiding Judge, and during the war in various positions, partially as an associate judge. In 1942 I became presiding Judge of a Special Court Chamber and I was in that position about a half a year or maybe a little longer. Later I became Chief of the District Press Office and I also was in charge of a department for the war economy of the District Court. Then, after the catastrophe I was transferred from the administration of justice to the Civil Administration and established a branch of the Investigating Office (Feststellungsbehoerde).
Q Dr. Timmermann, I observe from the translation booth that they did not fully understand the last part of your statement, I think perhaps because you were speaking too rapidly. Would you kindly repeat what you said but more slowly?
AAfter the catastrophe befell Hamburg, I was turned over by the Administration of Justice to the Administration of Hamburg and I took change of the branch office Linkes Alsterufer, of the investigation office.
I was in charge of that until the surrender. That branch office later was incorporated into the Kreisamt for restoration of damages.
Q Dr. Timmermann, I do not want to unduly embarrass you but you are at the present tine not employed, is that correct?
A No, at the present time I am not employed. My denazification proceedings have not been completed yet.
Q Dr. Timmermann, were you ever an honorary collaborator with the SD?
A Yes, I was honorary collaborator of the SD without being a member of the SS.
Q Yes. Now, Dr. Timmermann what function did you perform as an honorary collaborator for the SD?
A I had to make reports about the public opinion and the morale in the population and about various fields in particular. It was said that this was an organization which should replace the opportunity which did not exist at that time of National Socialism of a free statement of opinion.
Q And you made these reports if not in your capacity as a Judge, at least at the same time you were serving as a Judge, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Did your appointment to this job as an honorary collaborator for the SD, was that with the knowledge and approval of the Senator, Dr. Rothenberger?
A Yes, at the beginning of my work I informed the Senator because under no circumstances did I want to be suspected of spying against my office, and Dr. Rothenberger told me about his appreciation of the fact that I had come to him frankly and told him about it.
Q And what more did he say about it? Did he approve of your taking that job while you were a Judge?
A Yes, certainly he quite approved of it.
Q You were a Judge of the Fourth Penal Chamber in the early part of May 1942, were you not?
A Yes.
Q Were you present as a Judge of the Special Court when the system of review and preview was inaugurated by Senator Dr. Rothenberger?
A Yes, I was present.
Q Did you attend the initial meeting which was presided over by Dr. Rothenberger?
A Yes.
Q Can you tell us what Dr. Rothenberger said the purpose of the review and preview was to be?
A Dr. Rothenberger started by pointing out the case which had led to Hitler's speech in the Reichstag against the Administration of Justice and he said that so far relations between the Ministry of Justice in Hamburg and the Gauleitung had been very good and he hoped it would continue to be so and under no circumstances similar events should happen in Hamburg and he also stated that the administration of justice would have to tolerate a certain amount of guidance.
Q I would like to ask you briefly, Dr. Timmermann, to tell us the manner in which the review and the preview system worked. Now in the first place can you tell me how frequently the meetings were held?
AAccording to my recollection these meetings in the beginning occurred once a week, then later once in two weeks and I believe after Dr. Rothenberger left they only occurred once a month.
Q Can you tell me approximately how many people, justice or judicial administration officials or judges were present at these weekly meetings?
A There were, in addition to the President, a Dr. Briest who was personnel referent, furthermore -
THE PRESIDENT: Give the number without the names.
BY MR. KING:
Q Can you give us the number without going into detail, Dr. Timmermann?
A I believe about ten or twelve. There may have been more sometimes
Q Dr. Timmermann, may I ask you if these weekly meetings were not made up of the following roster: the presiding justice of a penalsenate, the presiding justice of the Special Court Chambers of which there were four, the Prosecutor General or his Deputy, the Prosecutor for the District Court and the Prosecutor and the Presiding Judge of the Special Court in Bremen, the Personnel Referent, and the President of the District Court; is that a complete roster of the individuals who attended these weekly meetings for preview and review conferences?
A Yes, that must be about right.
Q And you said before the number was approximately ten or twelve?
A Yes.
Q Now as a practical matter, how did the preview and review system work? Can you tell me how a case was brought to the attention of Dr. Rothenberger at these meetings?
A The presiding judges of the Chambers of the Special Court were instructed to submit the cases, make notations about these cases in writing, to give details, and they were told the most essential points had to be put down. It was not important to mention every detail of the cases but those which were considered important by the Judges themselves, also those cases that were pending for the next week and those cases that had been dealt with the previous week, and later, of course, according to the different intervals of two weeks or one month.
Q Let me summarize, the reports concerned not only the cases that had not been heard but cases which had been heard on which the decision had been reached by the Court, is that right?
A Yes.
Q In the first instance on cases that had not been heard, that constituted the preview?
THE PRESIDENT: That is very obvious to us from other testimony. You can assume we understand that.
BY ER. KING:
Q All right then, did Dr. Rothenberger attend all of these meetings?
A Yes, as long as he was there and it may be occasionally somebody deputized for him, but I would say he attended them when he was in Hamburg.
Q When the facts of a case in preview were discussed in a matter, what did Dr. Rothenberger say in regard to the facts of a particular case?
A The cases as far as the facts were concerned, and the actual and the legal consequences were discussed in general and Dr. Rothen berger stated his opinion.
Q His opinion as to how the case should be decided?
A The Judge first of all said what he intended his decision to be, provided the indictment submitted by the prosecution could be approved. In other words, he said for instance, that in his opinion this looked like a case of five years in the penitentiary and then it was discussed in general, and the prosecution also stated it's opinion, and then Dr. Rothenberger stated his as to whether it was possibly correct or whether it was necessary to pronounce a more severe or lenient sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until one-thirty this afternoon.
(The Tribunal adjourned for the noon recess).
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 19 September 1947)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Tribunal is again in session.
DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued HANS TIMMERMANN.
- Resumed BY MR. KING:Q.- Dr. Timmerman you testified before the luncheon recess how the reports were made by the judges at the preview conferences, now assume for a moment that the same case is discussed a few weeks later in a review session and assume further that the Judge in deciding the case has come to a different conclusion than was suggested for the same case in the preview conference, can you tell us in that situation what the reaction of Dr. Rothenberger was?
A.- That all depended as to the reasons that the Judge gave for having changed his mind.
Q.- Let me ask you a further supplementary question then: Suppose the Judge said as his reason that he did not think that the law permitted him to decide the question in the manner which had been suggested in the preview session?
A.- I cannot remember any such cases, what happened was that the Judge had an opportunity to explain why he had changed his mind usually by saying what evidence had been established at the trial. In fact what happened was that the preview was based on the indictment material produced by the Prosecution and then that material was discussed at the preview, and under the assumption that the facts of the case were correct, it was suggested that perhaps a penitentiary sentence might be passed; and then at the review the Judge had to explain why he had deviated from this line by showing that the facts of the case as produced by the Prosecution had not been found to be correct.
Q.- Yes, Dr. Timmerman, do you recall in your experience whether or not the law against Poles and Jews was applied in the Hamburg Judicial Administration?
A.- Yes, naturally that was applied. It was a law that had been promulgated, and therefore it was applied. I remember that the President of the District Court once at a conference of judges made special reference to the law. As far as I remember he was referring to a case which had occurred in Altona, and where the law against the Poles had not been applied with sufficient severity.
Q.- Are you referring to the Komorowski case?
A.- Well, I don't remember the name of the defendant, but I think it was a case which Dr. Hennings, District President, had tried at Altona. As far as I remember a sentence of two years in the penitentiary had been passed on the Pole for a sex crime and the President of the District Court pointed out to the judges that the sentence was too lenient.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you referring to Dr. Rothenberger as the President or who?
A.- No, that was Dr. Korn, President of the District Court.
MR. KING: The Prosecution has no further questions of this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any cross examination?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WANDSCHNEIDER:Q.- Witness, the preview and review was established after Hitler's speech of April 1942.
Do you know that even before a decree by Guertner had resulted in an arrangement which provided for direct contact between the individual judge and the individual Public Prosecutor?
A.- I believe I recall that but I cannot tell you for certain as regards that decree by Guertner. I don't know anything about it, but just a second, when I took over the Chamber of the Special Court, I think I did occasionally negotiate with the Prosecutor.
It is possible but I cannot tell you for certain.
Q.- Was it always the presiding judge in Court who was the Chairman of the Preview of their case?
A.- I said before that the Prosecution attended it and the Presidents of the Penal Senate and the President of the Special Courts and Dr. Rothenberger presided over the meeting. The presidents of the Court attended. Dr. Korn attended the meeting and also I believe the Presidents of the local Courts later on attended these meetings.
Q.- At those conferences were the facts of a case established in any way concerning a forth coming trial or was that reserved for the taking of evidence in the trial itself?
A.- The facts of establishment of the case was reserved for the trial itself. The preview was based on the material of the indictment, provided that the evidence proved at the trial did confirm the material.
Q.- I will now depart from this subject and I want to ask you a question about your work in the SD. You have told us, Dr. Rothenberger agreed with you doing that work?
A.- Yes, he did.
Q.- Have you any idea why Dr. Rothenberger agreed with your doing it?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Why was it desirable with Dr. Rothenberger for you to work in the SD?
A.- I imagine he gave his consent so as to not become himself subject to criticism. When I began my work he told me that the SD was trying to base it's reports on a decent foundation. That had not always been so before. He told me about unpleasant occurrences which were supposed to have happened at an earlier period, but had now been overcome.
Q.- In this connection I would like to ask you a concrete question: did Dr. Rothenberger by having Judges in the SD, want to avoid any informing about or spying the administration of justice?
A.- That is quite possible, that is quite possible and I am inclined to believe it was so.
Q.- Were the previews or reviews ever furnished with the - I don't think I will ask any more questions about that. Do you know when that was put into practice, when the order was given?
A.- That was after Hitler's speech.
Q.- You can't remember the exact date?
A.- No, I can't.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you, I have no further question.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION HANS TIMMERMAN BY MR. KING:Q.- Just one question, a matter of identification, your Honor?
I show the witness Exhibit 597 and ask him if that is a report of the conference he attended with Korn in which the question of the application of the laws against Poles and Jews was discussed?
A Whether that conference was held on the 5th or 6th of May, 1942, I can't tell you. As far as I remember it was not held only such a short time after the preview and review method had been introduced.
Q Excuse me, go ahead.
A Just a moment please, but I cannot remember that Korn, the president of the district court of appeal, mentioned the fact that that law against Poles was to be applied also in the case of offenses which were committed before that law was promulgated; I don't know about that; but this transcript is quite in accordance with my memory of the conference.
MR. KING: That is all, thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
MR. KING: The Prosecution has one additional witness, rebuttal witness, in the case Rothenberger, but that witness has not yet arrived He was requested at the same time that the other witnesses were, but so far he has not put in an appearance. That is the witness Segelken, and we will put him on as soon as he arrives. Until that time we have no further witnesses in the case against Rothenberger,
THE PRESIDENT: We consider it highly important for orderly procedure that the defendants, except as you have made agreement to the contrary two days ago, should finish their testimony before the rebuttal goes in. It will be more desirable if we have the testimony of the defendants finished first. Of course if we have to fill in at some time, we may be required to do that.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Your Honor, perhaps I could fill the time now because I still have two defense witnesses here, but I first have to ask you to approve these witnesses. One of them is the witness Fritz Valentin; he is a witness from Hamburg. I had intended to ask him here, and then I sent him a wire and told him not to come when the other day the Court announced its ruling, that the Hamburg witnesses whom. I asked were not to be summoned. Although I have an affidavit from him, Valentin, I attach great importance to this witness -
THE PRESIDENT: Is he here?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: If he is here you con call him.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: If the Court will approve, he is here and I shall be very glad to hear him. The same is true of the other witness Billas. Both of them are here.
THE PRESIDENT: Call them.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you, very much.
FRITZ WALENTIN, 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 DR. WANDSCHNEIDER (Attorney for the defendant Rothenberger):
Q Witness, please tell the Tribunal your full name; also the place where you were born and other personal date.
A Fritz Walentin; born on the 6th August, 1897; director of the district court at Hamburg.
Q Would you please tell the Tribunal briefly how your career developed?
AAs is customary, I studied law for the prescribed number of semesters, in 1922 I passed my examination as a referendar; at the end of 1924 I passed my assessor examination. Until 1926 I worked as assessor with the prosecution and the latter part cf that period I worked as a prosecutor. After that I became a judge, and I remained a judge until November, 1939. Then, I was discharged for reasons which I think will be discussed later.
Q Please tell the Tribunal now why you were dismissed in 1939?
A I am of Jewish origin, and in November, I believe - I believe I must correct myself now. I was dismissed in 1934; that was a slip of the tongue - 1934, not 1939. In November 1934 I was engaged in correspondence with the Kreisleiter of the party of my place of residence.
Q Witness, for the time being I only wait your personal data. I want to revert to this matter later whether in 1934 you. were dismissed; how long you stayed in Germany?
A I stayed in Germany until August, 1939.
Q Where did you go then?
A I with my family emigrated to Great Britain.
Q And when did you return from England?
A I returned from England in February of 1946, and returned to Hamburg.
Q How long have you known Dr. Rothenberger?
A I can't give you the exact year; I first met him a few years before 1933. I got to know him through official contacts. If I remember rightly, in the years before 1933 he worked in the Hamburg administration of justice, and just a few times we also met socially.
Q How did that social contact come about?
A. Dr. Rothenberger was a school fellow of my brother-in-law.
Q Well, can you tell us something about Dr. Rothenberger's attitude to the Jewish question such as it was at that time when you used to meet him occasionally?
A Well, I can testify to that mainly in connection with my own person, but just as these matters concerned myself very considerably, I was also interested in his general attitude to this problem.
Q And what was that general attitude of his at that time?
AAt that time it seemed to me that his attitude was absolutely moderate. At that time I didn't think that Dr. Rothenberger could have been described as an anti-Semite.
Q Can you tell us about Dr. Rothenberger's general political attitude at the time, around about 1933 and prior to 1933?
Was he unprejudiced?
A Yes, I think you must call him unbiased, and I believe that I can recall a few conversations I had with him, and I think I may say that at that time he was altogether tolerant and generous. At any rate, he certainly was not a fanatic.
Q Witness, may I now ask you to tell us something from your own personal experiences with Dr. Rothenberger. Will you tell us what happened as from 1933. You were investigating judge from January 1933, were you not?
A Yes, on 1st January, 1933 I became an investigating judge. Until the spring, I believe it was the 1st of April or the 1st of May, 1934.
Q Did that situation strike you in any way as being unusual?
A Well, unusual because the general tendency was, and generally that tendency was also put into effect, that all non-Aryan judges were removed from the administration of penal justice very soon after the 30th January 1933, they were either dismissed or transferred to the administration of civil law.
Q Did Dr. Rothenberger at the time tell you that the party had exerted pressure on him to remove you?
A Yes, in 1933, and I believe also in 1934, an occasion which I can't remember now - there must have been several reasons I callen on him, and he told me several times that the party had urged to dismiss me from the administration of penal justice, I believe I must have been the only judge who at that time still worked in the administration of penal justice who was of Jewish origin. He said that he saw no reason for the time being to give way to that pressure.
Q Well, at that time a number of non-Aryan judges still worked in the civil administration, didn't they?
A Yes, at that time there was quite a number of non-Aryans who were still working in the administration of civil justice.
Q Witness, would you make a little pause after my question because otherwise it makes the work difficult for the interpreters. Did your relations with Dr. Rothenberger become more complicated after that?
Will you describe that to us, please. Will you please explain whether matters became more complicated?
A Well, to begin with; I should think I can put it like this. The first difficulty arose when the question of swearing an oath became acute, and that was in August, 1934. Now, I think I ought to interpolate here. Something happened before that time. Frank, who was then the Reich Commissar for Justice, and later became Governor General when the German Reich Legal Front was founded, made a speech at the Hanseatic Court of Appeal and in that speech he made reference to the position of those civil servants who were of Jewish descent. He protested against the fact that the party ha.d been charged with having treated Jewish civil servants badly and the reasons he gave were that after all we left the Jewish front fighters in their office and he made some derogatory remarks that there night have been a few Jews on the front. As I belonged to that category of civil servants, I wrote a pretty strong letter to the Reich Commissar of Justice and I expressed myself pretty frankly, and a copy of that letter I sent to the administration of justice in Hamburg, that is to say to Dr. Rothenberger, and nothing further happened. Dr. Rothenberger did not ask me to go to call on him. As I told you before, then a question of swearing an oath became acute, and that was after Hindenburg's death in 1934. The judges and prosecutors of Hamburg, all of them were asked to appear to take the oath, and all those judges who were nonAryans and still in office were not asked to appear; but they had to go to Dr. Rothenberger's Office. At his office Dr. Rothenberger addressed us and told us roughly this: He could imagine that we would find it embarrassing to take this oath together with all our other colleagues, and, therefore, he had asked us to come to his office so that we could swear to it to him personally. He added that those among us who have any misgivings, and he added a few more words about the significance of the oath, well he said that any of us who have any misgivings about swearing to this oath, I would ask you to leave this room; I will talk to you alone afterwards; and in the meantime I would ask those men who are prepared to do so to swear to the oath.
I had serious misgivings about taking the oath and I left his office. The other men did swear to the oath. Dr. Rothenberger afterwards asked me to go and see him alone. I said to him what my reasons were for finding myself in very serious conflicts with my conscience, and why I was not in a position to take this oath. And Dr. Rothenberger said, well, if that is the way you feel about it, it is up to you. At that time, as I well remember now, he talked to me in a very human way; he tried to persuade me in a very humane way just what a refusal on my part would mean, he said after all, you have a family, a wife and three children, and that just now one judge had been dismissed because he had refused to swear to this oath and he had been dismissed without a pension, and that is why he had to explain all this to me, and I should make no hasty decisions. I asked to delay my decision because I was about to go on leave, and that I would give him my decision in a few weeks later when I returned.
Q What was your decision?
A Inspite of my serious misgivings, on account of my family I decided to swear to the oath and I went to see Dr. Rothenberger.
Q. And what was the situation which caused a final complications?
A. A few months later, at the end of October, or at the beginning of November 1934, I was engaged in correspondence with the Kreisleiter of the party of the district where I lived. I told him in my letter that I refused to continue to pay contributions for the Winterhilfe as long as Hitler continued to describe the non-Aryan people as inferior persons, and in the future I would pay my contributions to the church to which I belonged. The Kreisleiter in his reply stated that it wasn't true that Hitler had said non-Aryans were inferior people, and for the rest he was not the competent person to deal with this matter, and he forwarded my letter to a superior authority, that is to say, had it sent on to the Gau. Thereupon I wrote another letter to him in detail that perhaps Hitler might not have used this word expressly but the Gauleiters were using it all the time, and that they had to be considered as his mouth pieces and to that effect I wrote at great length and asked the Kreisleiter to pass also that letter on to the Gau. About three weeks passed. Then I was asked to go and see Dr. Rothenberger. I immediately noticed that he had that correspondence before him on his desk. He received me with the words which I remember exactly to this day; "You are making it very difficult for me to retain non-Aryan colleagues in office. I cannot discuss this matter with you today as to how I judge your behavior, from the human point of view, but I will have to tell you that after this correspondence you cannot retain your office as judge -- as from the first of January you have to consider yourself dismissed." I said in that case would I be permitted to go on leave immediately, and Dr. Rothenberger agreed.
Q. Did you subsequently receive your full pension?
A. Yes, I did receive my full pension.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you, I have no further questions of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any cross examination?
MR. KING: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Before you begin -- Dr. Wandschneider, you have one more witness - you have one more yet?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes, I have.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is prepared to proceed after that? I am informed that Dr. Schilf has two witnesses here.
DR. SCHILF's ASSISTANT: One will be available this afternoon.
MR. KING: Your Honor, I know of certain negotiations that are being conducted now with the Prosecution to produce the witness Franka after Dr. Wandschneider has completed his examination of his last available witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Who wants him; who wants Franka?
MR. KING: Dr. Schilf.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I think I understood the Tribunal correctly that you were telling us that we are now to examine the defense witnesses but that in our rebuttal we are entitled to submit further evidence; and I want to conclude our defense case end produce at this stage our defense witnesses and for the rebuttal, within the discretion of the Tribunal, we can still produce evidence?
THE PRESIDENT: be want you to put in all the evidence you have, and that applies to all of the defendants. Put it in and keep the Tribunal busy with your evidence until it is exhausted.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I see.
THE PRESIDENT: I mean until the evidence is exhausted.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. KING:
Q. Witness, you testified, did you not, that a s of the date of 1934 that you were the only full Jew remaining in the just administration in Hamburg? I understood you correctly, did I not?
A. No, that is a misunderstanding. I 1934 I was not the only judge of Jewish descent. At that time there were still a few other non-Aryans, but one by one they were dismissed, but after I was dismissed, at the end of 1934, a few were still in office.
Until November 1938 -
Q. I don't want to labor the point, witness, but are you distinguishing between degrees of non-aryanism?
A. No; that is not what I am doing. Judges, full Jews and halfJews did remain in office after I had been dismissed. I was not the last non-Aryan to be dismissed.
Q. Yes.
A. Perhaps this is what you misunderstood. What I want to say is that I was the sole only Jewish judge who still worked with the administration of penal law, and in the spring of 1934, while other judges who had worked in the administration of penal law had already been dismissed in the course of 1933 from that branch and had been transferred, if they were at all, to the civil administration.
THE PRESIDENT: We recollect the witness' testimony; that was the way he testified before. Pass on.
BY MR. KING:
Q. I regret the necessity of asking you certain personal questions, but I think you can understand. Your wife was an Aryan, was she not?
A. Yes, she is.
Q. And you yourself arc a member of a Protestant church; are you not?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And you were in 1933 and 1934?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. You were a veteran of the first World War; were you not?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Arc you familiar with paragraph 2 - one moment, please. Are you familiar with paragraph 2 of the law for the reorganization of civil service which was passed on 7th April, 1933 , which gave certain rights for the time being, employment rights to Jews who had served in the first World War?
A. Yes.
Q. And is that a possible explanation
A. I am familiar with that.
Q. And is that a possible explanation as to why you and and your fellow colleagues of the Jewish faith stayed on for a time after 1933?
A. Yes, it is possible that that played a certain part, but as far as I know that had nothing to do with the fact that I remained on my job in the administration of penal law, but I do know that the front fighters, the veterans of the first World War were not covered immediately by regulations for dismissal.
Q. Witness, may I ask you to read the relevant paragraph of Article II, which is paragraph 2 of the decree?
A. Do you want me to read it out loud?
Q. Will you please, yes.
A. "Civil servants who are not of aryan descent"-- May I just say it is Article 3 -- "Section 1 does not apply to civil servants who during the World War fought on the front for the German Reich or it's Allies, or whose fathers or sons lost their lives in the World War."
Q. Yes, that is the paragraph I wanted you to take note of. You were not arrested in the uprising which occurred in Hamburg on the 9th and 10th of November, 1938, were you?
A. No, I was not arrested.
Q. A great many of Jews of which you knew were arrested though, were they not?
A. Yes, I know of that.
Q. Yes. You know of the damage done in Hamburg by the SS and the SA at that time?
A. I saw it myself.
Q. Yes. Did you consider it extensive?
A. I didn't get your question.
Q.Did you consider the damage done at that time extensive?
A. Yes, very considerable.
MR. KING: I have no more questions.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q. Witness, can you make a comparison between the damage done in Hamburg in November 1938 during the excesses and the damage done in other cities?
A. Quite by chance on the 19th of November, 1938, I was in Berlin, and I saw that there the damage was a great deal more extensive, but -
Q. Is is right to say that in Hamburg the damage was considerably large only in a few streets in the interior of the town?
A. That is right.
Q. And is it correct for the rest to say that the streets remained largely undamaged?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. You said before that the Jewish or non-Aryan judges had been dismissed gradually one by one. According to the provisions of the law, would it have been possible for Dr. Rothenberger to have dismissed the non-Aryan judges much quicker?
A. In my view a judge because of Article 6 of the law for the restitution of civil servants, under which I was dismissed in 1934, provided them with the possibility to dismiss civil servants whether they were Jewish or whether they were not Jewish; whether one was a front fighter, a veteran or not.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.