A. I can't tell you. I can't remember that now. I don't know how that matter ended. I didn't follow the matter at all.
THE PRESIDENT: I was wondering, Dr. Schilf, what part the defendant Klemm had in carrying out that prosecution. The witness spoke of the Ministry of Justice having caused an arrest to be made.
DR. SCHILF: The defendant Klemm does not play an immediate part in these events.
THE PRESIDENT: I supposed that you were examining for the defendant Klemm and I wondered if you claimed Klemm had anything to do with prosecuting this officer who had been guilty as the witness says.
DR. SCHILF: No, Your Honor, but I would like to say that I am concerned with a subject that comes under the heading of General Defense.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. I spoke about the first instance which you have described to us. In 1944 a second case is supposed to have occurred when again we heard the head of the prison was criticized by the Ministry -that is to say, by the Division V or by the Minister himself. Can you tell us something about that case?
A. Yes, that was the head of a prison in the district of Posen. He was a Oberregierungsrat in charge of the Schirat prison; concerning supplies and the administration irregularities had occurred. The head of the prison acquired foodstuffs which were not his due and he had also derived other benefits from prisoners working by fixing higher rates of pay than were laid down in the regulations. Proceedings were instituted against him and he was sentenced to a prison term of, I believe, about 16 months.
DR. SCHILF: That is enough. May it please the Court, I have no further questions to this witness.
MR. WANDSCHNEIDER: (Counsel for the defendant Rothenberger): I would ask you to permit me to ask the witness two questions.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q. Dr. Hecker, do you know that Dr. Rothenberger during his period of office was only in charge of the division dealing with civil matters?
A. Yes, Divisions IV and V here, during the whole time when he was Under Secretary, immediately under the direction of the Ministry.
Q. Did you ever in your affairs make a report to Dr. Rothenberger?
A. No, I do not remember that a report was ever made. It is possible that at the beginning when he arrived, as a general survey on matters on the Division, some sort of a report may have been made to him, but not on details. In any case, I myself, as far as I know, never reported to him.
Q. Did Dr. Rothenberger make any decisions or play any part in matters concerning your division?
A. No, no he did not.
Q. Thank you.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. GRUBE: (Attorney for Defendant Lautz)
Q. Do you know that the Reich Ministry of Justice issued a circular decree to the prisons containing detailed instructions to these prisons concerning the treatment of NN prisoners and the manner in which they were to be secluded from the outside world?
A. Yes. At the beginning of the NN matters a circular decree was issued to the prisons, where such prisoners were housed and to the prosecutors concerned. Those instructions ruled on visitors, on correspondence, and other communications concerning prisoners held for trial. The order was that permission for letters and parcels was to be held up -- that concerned the sending of such mail as well as the receipt.
Q. Were the prisons told in that circular decree that they would have to make an exception as far as the defense counsel was concerned?
A. No, concerning the defense counsel I believe only oral communications were allowed. That was settled by the prosecution. But, later -- yes they could write to defense counsel; I must assume that.
Q. Were the prisons under the Administration of Justice, under the Oberreichsanwalt at the People's Court?
A. No, he had no influence on the measures which were taken at those proceedings;
Q. He did not exercise supervision over the prisons?
A. No, he did not.
DR. GRUBE: Thank you.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF: (Attorney for Defendant Joel) I would ask the Tribunal to allow me to direct a few questions to the witness.
Q. I would like to refer to Document NO-638-PS, in Document Book IV-A. That document contains a note which the defendant Joel made after a conference with Reichmarshal Goering on 14 September, 1942, and extracts of which concerning one point are contained in this document book.
THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit number, please.
DR. THIELE-FRIEDERSDORF: That is Exhibit 262.
Q. In this document the defendant Dr. Joel reports on a suggestion by the Reichsmarshal of that time, Goering, to the Reich Ministry of Justice to the effect that smugglers and poachers were to be selected from the prisons and possibly used in counteracting band activities on the eastern front. Mr. President, from your activities in the penal administration division and the Reich Ministry of Justice, do you know with what branches of the armed forces there were so-called Bewaehrungseinheiten probation units?
A. Those probation units -- Bewaehrungseinheiten -existed with the army.
Q. Only with the army or also with other branches of the armed forces?
A. No, neither the navy or the Luftwaffe had any probation units.
Q. What was to be understood by that conception of probation units?
A. Those units of probation were comprised of persons who had previous convictions and persons who were altogether unworthy. There were probation units for persons who were unworthy of doing service with the armed forces; and other units of probation for persons who had not lost their status of being eligible for service with the armed forces but on account of their heavy sentences were not thought suitable.
Q. Without dealing with any details, one can say in brief that in such units of probation there were persons who in some way or another had been in conflict with the penal laws, who had either finished their Berm, or who had teen removed from the prisons in order to prove themselves worthy of service with the armed forces.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you hear that the employment of those units was carried out in a manner which was contradictory to international law?
A. No. The difference in the employment was laid down in such a manner that the units of probation were sent to a particular danger spot.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Excuse me. I cannot get to this microphone. I did not hear all of the witness' answer, but I ask that the answer to that question be stricken for the reason that it was a leading question and also called for a conclusion of the witness on a question of law. If I could have gotten here in time to stop it, I would have objected; it is the only recourse I have.
THE PRESIDENT: The answer will be stricken.
Q. Mr. President, who dealt with the callup for those units probation at the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A. They were dealt with by Division IV, which had to come to an agreement with the high command of the armed forces.
Q. Who was the expert?
A. The export was -
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Wait a minute; your Honors, it is going too fast.
Excuse me, I must ask the Court to ask the witness to wait until the question has been asked and reaches me through the interpreter. I can't intelligently object to anything here -- the answer comes before I have heard the question.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is directed to pause after the question has been asked and until the question has been translated,-
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And the counsel for the Prosecution has had opportunity to object if he desires.
Q. May I repeat my last question. Who in fact was the expert who dealt at the Reich Ministry of Justice with the callup to units of probation?
A. That was the Ministerialrat Westphal.
Q. Did the defendant Joel have anything to do with the handling of matters for penal administration and the execution of punishment at the Reich Ministry of Justice in a general way?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I object to the qualification "in a general way." I want to know what that means.
DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF: The meaning of my question is this: I want to ask the witness to tell us whether the defendant had anything to do with those divisions and with the questions with which that division dealt; that is a question concerning the division of work.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I have no objection to that now; it was just the general way -
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may answer.
A. Ministerialrat Joel was not in charge of the field of penal administration; he dealt with other questions with in Division IV.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. The question was not whether he was in charge. The question was whether he had anything to do with it.
A. No.
Q. And did the defendant Joel have anything to do with the callup of prisoners for the armed forces, that is to say for the units of probation of the armed forces; did he specifically have anything to do with that?
A. No.
Q. Do you remember that Dr. Joel in the autumn of 1942 was sent by the Reich Minister of Justice to a conference with Reichsmarshal Goering, in the course of which Goering made certain suggestions which I have already indicated from the document, for the Reich Ministry of Justice -
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Please don't answer. I object to that, Your Honor, for the reason that the witness cannot possibly know what suggestions were made by Goering, or does not have any way of knowing for what purpose Joel was sent to the conference; he was not the director of it.
THE PRESIDENT: The question as I understand it is whether the witness knows if Joel was sent to the conference; to that extent he may answer.
DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF: I would like to put the document to the witness, with the agreement of the Prosecutor, and I would like to ask him if he still remembers that note.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: To which I object, Your Honor; the witness has never testified he had any knowledge of the note. The note was issued by any authority; the witness has not shown that he is qualified to have any information of any of these matters.
THE PRESIDENT: I understood the question to relate, as I said before, to this: Does the witness know whether Joel went to this conference; he has not yet asked what happened at the conference. The ruling was the witness, if he knows, may answer whether Joel went to the conference.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I thought the last question was beyond that.
THE PRESIDENT: Answer that question if you know.
A. I know he was there, because afterwards that note was submitted to me.
THE PRESIDENT: Ask your next question.
Q. Who submitted that note which you have just looked at to you?
A. It was Westphal who showed it to me.
Q. Do you remember that this Westphal was the competent expert on that suggestion by Goering and do you remember what he said about that suggestion?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Just a minute. I object to what Westphal told this witness. If there is any written document, any captured document, any documentary evidence all right; but to call now for what Westphal told this witness about what happened at a meeting with Goering, at which Westphal wasn't present, I object.
DR. THIELE--FREDERSDORF: I cannot see that the fact that Westphal is dead is to cut off the answer to my question, and in that case the Defense would not be in a position to conduct any defense against this charge made by the Prosecution. The defendant Joel can hardly be subjected to such a disadvantage from the death of Westphal.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honor please, I may have not put my objection properly. Certainly there is nothing in the testimony of this witness, nor in this document, that shows that Westphal was present or that he had any personal knowledge. Now I don't care whether he is alive or dead; he is not qualified to testify in answer to this question which was, as I get it: What did Goering say at this meeting? That is what I thought it was.
DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF: May I show the prosecutor the bottom of the document, which says "Ministerial Director, IV and V"? That means to say, as the witness will be able to tell us--- Who was the Ministerial Director of IV and V, witness?
THE WITNESS: It was Ministerial Director Krohne and Ministerial Director Marx.
DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF: I believe that under the Distribution of Work Plan, which is not disputed, it is clear that a matter like this would have been dealt with by the expert - that is Westphal - and that therefore, particularly when one looks at the note at the end of the document, it is clear that Westphal must have known about that note.
May I show the Tribunal the note which is at the bottom of that document? May I read it out? It says there: "Ministerial Directors IV and V: I enclose extracts from the notes on the conference submitted by Ministerialrat Dr. Joel for the preparation of the report on Friday, 9 October."
That reveals that that note on the conference was sent to all competent officials and the witness has already confirmed that to us.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Your Honor, I guess I am completely confused by now. I am not objecting to the fact that there are certain numbers on here; I am objecting to the question as stating an argument and a conclusion from the facts, and also I again object to any statement by this witness of what Westphal might have told him because Westphal was not at the meeting.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is sustained.
BY DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF:
Q. Witness, what happened, according to your memory and your knowledge, after that suggestion by Goering, the Reich Marshal? What steps were taken on the part of the Reich Ministry of Justice? In other words, what steps did the competent expert take?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: To which I object. The witness has not shown that he knew who the competent expert was, or what steps he would have taken.
THE PRESIDENT: Ask him first if he knows.
Mr. Witness, do you know who the competent expert was, and do you know what steps were taken by him?
THE WITNESS: I will answer that question--
THE PRESIDENT: Answer yes or no.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Ask your next question.
BY DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF:
Q. Do you know and do you remember what steps the competent expert did take?
A. The competent expert went to the headquarters where he had a discussion with General Meindl. Afterwards he had a discussion with General Oberst Jeschonek. Afterwards, when he came back, he said that nothing had come of the matter because suitable people for that employment were not available.
Q. Who was it who went there?
A. It was Westphal who went there.
Q. Did you hear what the opinion was of Jeschonek and Meindl concerning Goering's suggestion?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I object. Your Honor, I object to that in the form in which it is stated. I am not concerned about the opinions, nor do I think they are relevant.
DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF: This is not a question of the opinion of the witness, but it is a case of finding out a fact, because the witness was the official in charge of these matters of penal administration in the ministry and therefore heard about them in his official capacity.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may answer.
BY DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF:
A. Westphal told us that Meindl had stated that they had no interest in the matter. It had been an idea of the Reich Marshal, but they themselves were not interested in following it up.
Q. And was anything done later on, following up Goering's suggestion?
A. No, the matter was not taken up any further.
Q. I would now like to ask you a few questions about a second point, witness. Can you give us some general information concerning the work of the defendant Dr. Joel at the Central Prosecution Office in the Reich Ministry of Justice? Can you tell us what the work of that Referat was?
A. The duties of the Central Prosecution Office were to handle proceedings where the local prosecution had had difficulties with the Party agencies.
Q. What was the result of Dr. Joel's work within the framework that you have described to us; concerning his relations to the Party, I mean?
A. Concerning individual Party agencies, and particularly Gauleiters and some Kreisleiters, Joel was very much attacked for prosecuting Party members.
Q. As to these difficulties which arose in Joel's relations with the Party, were they given prominent expression in any remarks made by any Party persons so far as you remember?
A. In my recollection, Reich Marshal Goering, at a meeting of the Prussian State Council, demanded that Joel should be recalled and should no longer handle these matters.
Q. What were the reasons that were given?
A. As a reason he said that he was too severe with people who had made great merits for the Party.
Q. Did the defendant Joel allow himself to be confused?
A. No, no, he appeared to be for the same course as before.
Q. And after that Referat of the Central Prosecution was dissolved, did he perform the same duties? Was he charged with the same duties as before?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. Were those duties identical with what is charted, under the Work Distribution Plan, as "Special Measures"?
A. I believe that must be the same.
Q. Can you remember a case which was particularly sensational and which occurred in the practice of Dr. Joel in that connection in the war years?
A. Yes, I remember a case which occurred in Luebeck where, at a Gauleiter's office, the Gauamtswalter of the NSV was prosecuted and was sentenced to death in spite of protests registered by the Party agencies.
Q. Do you remember what his rank in the SS was and do you remember his name?
A. His name was Stegmann, I believe.
Q. Stegmann. And can you remember his rank in the SS?
A. No, no. He was a high SS leader.
Q. Do you remember what Party agencies and offices tried to assist that criminal?
A. It was the Gauleiter and the Minister of Propaganda.
Q. The Minister of Propaganda Goebbels?
A. Yes, Goebbels.
Q. The defense counsel for the defendant Klemm brought up the subject of irregularities which occurred at the Papenburg camp. Can you remember whether the Central Prosecution dealt with the prosecution of the prison wardens who had committed such irregularities?
A. What happened was that the proceedings were carried out at Osnabrueck. Afterwards, I believe the Central Prosecution took over some of the work, but I can't remember the details.
DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF: I have no further questions to ask of this witness. 4844 BY DR. TIPP (Counsel for the defendant Barnickel):
Q. Dr. Hecker, first of all, would you please tell the Tribunal whether the organs of penal executions - that is to say, the organs which had to actually carry out the penal executions - were there any legal provisions about them?
A. Yes, those organs were laid down in the Code of Penal Procedure.
Q. Am I understanding you correctly, witness, that concerning paragraph 451, Section 1 of the Penal Code of Procedure - is that the paragraph you are referring to?
A. Yes. In that paragraph it is laid down--
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I object to the answer what is laid down in the paragraph, Your Honor. I don't mind his referring to the paragraph; I object to the witness testifying as to what is in this section of the statute.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the statute in evidence?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: It is not, as far as I know, or if it is in evidence, I still object.
DR. TIPP: Your Honor, naturally I can read the paragraph to the witness and I can ask him whether that is the article he is referring to. Perhaps that would be a better way.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead and do it.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q. Article 451, Section 1, of the Penal Code of Procedure says:
"The execution of punishment is carried out by the prosecution."
May I ask you, witness, whether that is the article you were referring to?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. Witness, concerning sentences passed by the People's Court, do you know which, then, was the authority that dealt with the execution of punishment?
A. Concerning sentences passed by the People's Court, in the first instance the Oberreichsanwalt was in fact the authority that dealt with the execution of punishment.
Q Is there a legal provision governing that point, too, Witness?
A The order as to who will be the authority dealing with each case was laid down in the code of procedure.
Q I will read the regulation to you and then will ask you whether that is, in fact, the regulation you are referring to. It is Article 2 of the Code of Penal Execution. That provision says: The execution authority, unless something else has been laid down, will be-tried the Oberreichsanwalt of the Supreme Reich Court or the People's Court in the first and last instance. Was that the provision you referred to, Witness?
A Yes.
Q I can say then, witness, that the transfer of the authority of execution to the Oberreichsanwalt to the People's Court occurred by virtue of a legal provision; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Now I would like to ask you, Mr. Hecker, as to what the law means by execution of punishment within the meaning of the provision which we have just discussed. Are we concerned with the instruction that the prisoner has to be sent to a prison for a certain time and for what fine or do we mean the actual execution of punishment at the prison concerned?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I object to that, your Honor, for the reason that it is calling for the opinion of this witness upon a provision of the law which has now been read.
MR. TIPP: If I may reply in brief, I did not ask the witness for his opinion, but my question was what, under German law, is understood by the execution of punishment. The witness was the head of the division concerned with the execution of punishment in the Reich Ministry of Justice, he must be the witness who is best fitted to give testimony on that subject. There I do not understand that objection.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If he is qualified as an expert, I withdraw the objection.
THE PRESIDENT: I think he should be allowed to answer.
A The execution of punishment dealt with the problem as to what punishment was to be executed and how long that punishment was to be. It contained the instruction to the prison concerned to house the prisoner for a certain period and to execute on him the sentence which had been passed, prison, penitentiary, etc., whatever the case may be, whereas the administration of punishment had to deal with all questions concerning the carrying out of the prison sentence. The administration of punishment, therefore, decided as to how within the prison the punishment was to be executed.
Q And, witness, what authority carried out the supervision over the practical part, that is to say, the supervision over the execution of punishment?
A The supreme authority for the execution of punishment was the Reich Ministry of Justice. Under the Ministry there were as supervising authorities for all prisons in their district the prosecutors concerned, the general prosecutors concerned.
Q As you told us before when you were examined by my colleague, Dr. Grube, the Oberreichsanwalt in the People's Court had nothing to do with the penal administration. Did I understand you right there, witness?
A Yes, yes.
Q May I ask you in addition, did the Oberreichsanwalt with the People's Court and his agency have anything to do with the prisons or the penitentiary or with the camps? Did he have a practical contact with them?
A No, he had no authority to issue orders, nor did. he have any other opportunities for exercising influence.
Q Witness, can you tell us what organ within the Prosecution authority, for example, within the Oberreichsanwalt's office at the People's Court, who was the person who dealt with the affairs of the Prosecution?
A The execution of punishment, unless an exception had been laid down, was in the hands of the Rechtspfleger. In the case of the Oberreichsanwalt they were the heads of offices. The Reichsanwalt himself did only in particular cases, for example, clemency cases, the execution of death sentences, or a total of sentences, only then did he himself have to play a part, whereas for normal affairs of the execution of punishment the Rechtspfleger acted on their own initiative.
Q Witness, concerning this point, this point of the execution of punishment by the Rechtspfleger I would like to put a document to you, and I would ask you to give us your viewpoint on it. This is document 614, Exhibit 267, which has been submitted by the Prosecution. This is contained in the Prosecution document Volume 4-A on page 74 of the German text and page 50 of the English text. Witness, the document I have given you just now is a letter. The heading says "Oberreichsanwalt of the People's Court, and the signature is Dr. Barnickel's". May I ask you to tell us, witness, whether that ordinance which you have before you is the transfer of three Poles who had been sentenced to a penitentiary sentence to a sentence at a severe camp, will you tell us whether that is a compulsory ordinance, an automatic ordinance of the execution of sentence, or whether it is an ordinance which was made at the initiative of the expert concerned?
A This is the change of a penitentiary sentence which had been passed to a sentence to be spent at a penal camp in pursuance of the law against Poles and the pertinent executary order. According to that law and that order all sentences which had been passed prior to the promulgation of the law against Poles were to be transferred. Concerning the discrimination between penal camp and more severe penal camp it has been decided that sentences in excess of three years were always to be commuted to a sentence to be passed at a severe camp. Consequently the Rechtspfleger simply could draft such an ordinance because in view of the higher sentence passed by the People's Court that was a matter of course, any how.
Q May I interrupt you briefly, witness? Document 614 on the first page reveals that the three Poles whom we have been dismissing had been sentenced to penitentiary terms of six years.
A Six years, yes.
Q May I ask you to continue?
A In this ordinance it says in excess of three years. Since the sentence exceeds three years, the prisoner is to be transferred automatically to the severe camp. The decision lies with the official in change of the administration of justice. That is to say, the public prosecutor. That is to say, in cases where there was no doubt the matter is submitted immediately to the prosecutor without previous consultation of any other authority.
Q Did I understand you correctly, witness, to say that this was an automatic ordinance?
A It was an ordinance which was prescribed which had to be followed as a matter of course and only in very special circumstances changes could have been made, that is to say the prisoner in exceptional cases could have been sent to an ordinary camp and not to an especially severe camp, but as a rule the provision said that the prisoners in these circumstances had to go to a more severe camp.
Q Witness, you said that as far as the practical penal administration, the execution of a sentence at a prison and at a camp, there was no actual difference; did I understand you correctly?
A Yes.
Q In that case the ordinance before us constitutes merely a theoretical change of a sentence.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I object to that. It clearly calls for a conclusion.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection sustained. It is now three o'clock. The court will take its afternoon recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q. Witness, you said before that in practice there was no difference between a punishment camp and a penitentiary but I think the Court will be interested to find out why that change of terms took place at all. Could you tell the Court the reason for that fact?
A. It was intended that these camps should be distinguished from prisons and penitentiaries so that a difference be made between German and other foreigners as well as Poles. It was intended that Poles should be kept in different institutions separate from the Germans and other foreigners. A complete separation was intended. Therefore, in these institutions in the Eastern territories subsequent by, only Poles were housed and for Germans only several individual cells were kept reserved in case such Germans had to be put into those institutions pending trial.
Q. I think that is sufficient on this point. May I ask you in conclusion, witness. Were these Poles under the competence of the Chief Reich Prosecutor with the Peoples' Court?
A. No.
Q. Then I may ask you, witness, referring to the same document, NG 614, Exhibit 267, to look at another page which I will show to you. It is a letter from the Office of the Penal Camp Schiratz of 15 January 1943, to the Chief Reich Prosecutor with the Peoples' Court. In this letter he is informed that the execution of punishment against a Pole who had boon sentenced had been interrupted upon the instructions from the Reich Ministry of Justice and that he was turned over to the Gestapo and by the Gestapo on the 15th of January 1943 was transferred to the camp Auschwitz. May I ask you a question in this connection, witness. That name Auschwitz after the collapse of Germany has gained a rather sad reputation.
At that time did you know anything about the camp at Auschwitz or the name Auschwitz at all? Was that a fact you knew?
A. No, at that time, in January, 1943, the camp was in upper Silesia, and it was not known to me, it was not a concept to me. Everyone had hoard about the camp Dachau but Auschwitz itself as a concentration camp was not known to me in 1943. Apparently it was established at that time. Later on, of course, I found out about it.
Q. Witness, may I ask you now, according to that photostatic copy which you have before you, was the department chief, Dr. Barnickel, informed about that letter? Can you tell us that on the basis of your knowledge of matters?
A. This is a letter from the office of the Camp to the Prosecution, the Chief Reich Prosecutor with the Peoples' Court, that is to say, a letter which was sent from the office of the camp to the Rechtspfleger. It is quite obvious, as can been seem from the disposition in the letter, that it was sent from the Rechtspfleger to the office of the camp and it says something about the lists of executions, a date, a notation, but it cannot be seen from that letter that it had to be submitted to the Prosecutor.
Q. In order to make that clear, witness, you said, therefore, that the document, according to your knowledge of the letter and according to what you see from the document, was not submitted to the Chief of the Department?
A. No.
Q. Witness, was your department in the Reich Ministry of Justice aware of the fact that the transfer of prisoners to the Gestapo was carried out for the purpose of extermination through work. But only as it is stated in one of the documents?
A. No, when the decree of October, 1942, was published, we were told that the transfer of the prisoners was to be carried out for the purpose of work in the camps of the Secret State Police, tho Gestapo, and the Chief of Department 5, when he wont to the RSHA with me, was told explicitly that the prisoners were to be transferred for the purpose of labor and that there was no intention to exterminate them.