THE PRESIDENT: The witnesses referred to are Otto Barnewald and Hermann Pister.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. ROBBINS: I now offer document 2154, on page 38 of the document book, as Prosecution Exhibit 52. This is an affidavit of Wolfgang Grosch who is a member of Amtsgruppe C, the Construction Amtsgruppe of the WVHA. He states that he was under Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl and his immediate superior was Oberstandartenfuehrer Eirenschmalz. On the second page of the affidavit he states, "Amtsgruppe C was responsible for the construction of gas chambers and crematoria when such construction had been demanded by Amtsgruppe D. The official channels were as follows:
"And then he goes ahead in the same paragraph to describe the official channels for the construction of gas chambers and crematoria.
DR. STEIN (Attorney for Defendant Eirenschmalz): Your Honor, I would also like to ask that the affidavit by Grosch should not be admitted, but instead of that, that Grosch be presented here as a witness, and I wish to give the reason for that. The question is whether the witness can actually state facts or thinks which he submitted in his affidavit, if they are only suggestions or opinions. May I continue to say in turn, the other affidavit with reference to Grosch, should the prosecution introduce this affidavit, I would like to ask this Tribunal that Krone, who also was read to be used as a witness against Eirenschmalz, be brought to this Tribunal in order to make statements with reference to all the points in which he explained in his affidavit and that also could be only assumptions and not facts.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you know, Dr. Stein, whether the witnesses Grosch and Krone are alive and available?
DR. STEIN (Attorney for Defendant Eirenschmalz): Yes, Your Honor, I am convinced of the fact that these witnesses are also here in some sort of an internment camp. I will be able to find out for sure and tell you in a very short time where these witnesses can be raised. In Dachau, I believe.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, the prosecution considers the matter of this procedure a very important subject and I would refer the court to Article 7 of Ordnance 7 -- Military Government Ordnance No. 7, which reads as follows in part; after setting forth the general rule that the technical rules of evidence shall not apply, the Ordnance reads: "Without limiting the foregoing general rules, the following shall be deemed admissible, if they appear to the Tribunal, to the Court in charge, of probative value relating to the charges:
affidavits, depositions, interrogations and other statements." Then the Article says the Tribunal shall afford the opposing party such opportunity to question the authenticity or probative value of such evidence as in the opinion of the Tribunal the duties of justice require. Now it seems to me that the procedure indicated by Military Government Ordnance No. 7 is clear. That is that if the Tribunal desires that a particular affidavit, deposition or interrogation or other statement contains anything of probative value, then the statement is to be admitted and to be given whatever weight the Tribunal thinks it should be given. Perhaps it should be given less weight because it is an exparte statement and then it is up to the defense, if they believe that the witness will not testify to the same material as he gave in his affidavit, it is up to the defense to apply to the Tribunal, as he is given the power to do under Ordnance 7, and then the Tribunal shall afford the opposing party such opportunity to question the authenticity or probative value of the evidence as they shall deem necessary. It seems that the present case will be greatly hampered if we are not allowed to present affidavits and depositions, but, on the contrary are forced to call the witnesses in personally each time we propose to put in an affidavit. It would seem that the burden should be upon the defendants to decide whether or not the witness should be called in this particular case and then apply to the Tribunal. I respectfully submit, Your Honors-
THE PRESIDENT: These affidavits are the affidavits of witnesses who are alive and available and plainly admissible for whatever probative value they have under the Control Counsel Memorandum.
Nevertheless, the Tribunal is pursuaded that an opportunity must be given for cross-examination. We will not prevent the reading or the introduction of these affidavits, but it is with the understanding that, unless these witnesses are produced, if they are available, and the defense given the right to cross-examine them, the Tribunal will give little or no weight to the affidavits. It seems to me that the best testimony available should be produced and that involves the presence of the witness, the opportunity on the part of the court to observe the witness, and to have some basis for determining his credibility, to say nothing of the precious right of cross-examination, which the defense has. Now, we won't interrupt the offering of these affidavits, but this is fair notice that the Tribunal would very much like to have these witnesses produced where they can be seen and observed and cross-examined. I don't think I need to put it any more forcefully than that.
MR. ROBBINS: Your Honor, may I expect the defense counsel to indicate which witnesses they wish to have called?
THE PRESIDENT: Of course. Of course. You needn't present any witness which the defense doesn't wish to cross-examine and it is their duty to inform you which ones they do wish to cross-examine.
MR. ROBBINS: I understand then that the affidavits which have been offered in evidence are admitted for whatever value the Tribunal may give them and are not merely admitted conditionally upon the witness being produced here?
THE PRESIDENT: That is correct.
DR. SEIDL (Attorney for Defendant Oswald Pohl): Your Honor, I am not quite clear about the fact at what time the suggestion of the defense should be submitted to present the witness to this Tribunal.
An affidavit, which has been submitted by the prosecution, I understood the Tribunal to ask that the defense should make the suggestion within that period of time when the prosecution is ready to submit an affidavit, then the prosecution should make up its mind if prosecution wants to introduce the affidavit or not, but then that the prosecution can always submit it when it is agreeable to bring the witness before this Tribunal for cross-examination; in order to clear that -- an example I make the application that the witnesses Barnewald and Pister be produced before this Tribunal. The prosecution should submit the affidavit; then the court to give the opportunity. The submission can only take place under one condition: That these two witnesses be brought here by the prosecution, and that is how I understood the Ordnance made by this Tribunal, namely, that the affidavit has not been admitted as evidence and that an eventual admission should be cancelled, if the prosecution is not in a position or does not intend to bring these two witnesses here for crossexamination purposes.
THE PRESIDENT: We are making a mountain out of a molehill. We are complicating it. When you want these witnesses, say so, and they will be brought. Just let it stand at that. Do not try to make difficulties. The court has assured you that these witnesses will be here when you wish to cross-examine them. That is all we can say.
MR. ROBBINS: The affidavit of Grosch states he was under Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl and that his immediate superior was Standartenfuehrer Eirenschmalz. It refers to the responsibilities of Amtsgruppe C for the construction of gas chambers and crematories.
I offer Document NO 2197 as Prosecution Exhibit No. 53. This is found on Page 40. This is an affidavit of Ernst Krone, also a member of Amtsgruppe C. He states he was transferred to the concentration camp Buchenwald and was employed in the Central Construction. On the second page of the affidavit he refers to the fact that he was employed with the Operational Staff S-III which was referred to in the opening statement as being the construction of the Fuehrer Headquarters. He says the maintenance and repair of all buildings, particularly of those pertaining to the concentration camps, was Standartenfuehrer Eirenschmalz' concern. SS posts had to got in touch with Eirenschmalz who then gave the order to undertake the repair work. Eirenschmalz had to be kept informed through the Administration of SS posts of every repair job effect in each of the concentration camps and it also had to be brought to his attention if gas chambers or crematoria failed to function and needed to be repaired.
I offer Document NO-385 as Prosecution's Exhibit 54. This is found on Page 43 and is a letter from Himmler to Pohl dated 5 December 1941, regarding the use of prisoners in the SS building program.
The letter refers to an order of Himmler to Pohl which orders Pohl to start training 5000 stone-masons and 10,000 bricklayers. It also refers to an order by Hitler according to which the DEST Industries, as a SS enterprise will have to supply at least 100,000 cubic meters of granite from the end of the war for the big constructions planned by the Fuehrer. This more than all the stone quarries of Germany together supplied before the war. He says this training scheme will be made considerably easier if all the sections concerned, that is, the Chief of the Security Main Office, the Inspector of Concentration Camps and all camp commands, cooperate in an understanding manner.
I next offer Document NO-500 as Exhibit 55. It is found on Page 45 of the English Document Book. This is a letter from Himmler to Gluecks dated 26 January 1942, ordering the arrangement for receipt of 150,000 Jews in the concentration camps. It was quoted in the opening statement.
I offer Document NO-1292, as Prosecution's Exhibit 56. It is found on Page 46. This is a letter dated 10 March 1942 from Kammler of Amtsgruppe C to Gluecks of Amtsgruppe D outlining the requirements for concentration camp labor in his construction program for 1942. Crematories were to be built at Buchenwald and Gusen according to the enclosure in the letter. This is further proof that the construction of crematories was under Amtsgruppe C in this connection.
I offer Document NO-1292 as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 56. I beg your pardon, this is NO-1215. I offer it as Prosecution's Exhibit 57, and it is a letter from Kammler to Pohl of 16 May 1942 regarding the use of concentration camps for armament production.
I offer Document NO-1216 as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 58. It is on page 57 of the Document Book. It is a report by the man who was Chief of Amts W-IV, on the inspection with Hohberg of concentration camps Auschwitz and Lublin. This is a report on travel and inspection of Butschowitz, Auschwitz, Lemberg, Lublin and Posen. May states he made the trip with Dr. Hohberg of Amtsgruppe W. He says in Auschwitz, about 600 prisoners are employed there in two shifts, and after completion of the four work shops now under construction, their number is to be increased to about 1,000.
SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Hoess, assured the German Equipment Works of his fullest support in every way.
He also states that discussions held by Dr. Hohberg with the Chief Buyer of the I.G. Farben Industry AG. Auschwitz, took place. The construction of the four workshops of the German Equipment Works which is now in progress, must therefore on no account be abandoned.
I offer Document 1912 as Prosecution's Exhibit 59. This is found on Page 63, and it is a letter from Maurer, the head of Office D-II to Hohberg, concerning the use of concentration camp inmates at the A.W. factory in Linz. This was referred to in the opening statement as having been built by Amtsgruppe C in collaboration with the Hermann Goering Works.
I offer Document 1290 as Prosecution's Exhibit 60. It is found on Page 64. This is a letter dated 22 January 1943 from Pohl to the Commandant of the various concentration camps and to Amtsgruppe W, ordering that a workday for inmates will be at least 11 hours, and outlining certain other procedures. Quoting from the last paragraph of the letter, "Up to 2 December 1943, all these detachments are to be reported to the Chief of Office Group D, for submission to me, with which a not working time of 11 hours daily can not be kept up.
Reasons for it have to be given."
This again shows the inter-relation of Amtsgruppe D, which was in charge of the Concentration Camps with Amtsgruppe W and the W-Industries.
I offer Document NO-1270 as Prosecution Exhibit 61. This is dated 13 February 1943 and is a memorandum of a conference between Pohl, Georg Loerner, Volk and Hohberg regarding the Osti Industry and use of inmates there. The first part of the document is a questionnaire and lists various subjections which were to be discussed at the conference. The file memorandum appearing on Page 5 of that document states that Pohl, Loerner, Volk, Hohberg and Dr. Horn of Osti conferred.
I offer Document NO-1030 as Prosecution's Exhibit 62. This is on Page 72 of the English Document Book. It is a letter dated 1 July 1943. It is from Mummenthey to the Commander of Flossenburg stating that Volk wants to inspect the camp at Flossenburg. I offer Document NO599 as Prosecution's Exhibit 63. This is a memorandum of a conference between Pohl, Globocnik, Gluecks, Loerner and others on WVH. taking over Jewish labor camps. It is dated 7 September 1943. It reads in part as follows:
"The following points were agreed upon:
"1) The approximately 10 labor camps of the SS and Police Chief existing in the district of Lublin will be taken over by the SS Economic administrative Main Office as branch-camps of Concentration Camp Lublin."
I next offer Document 1548 as Prosecution's Exhibit 64.
It is found on Page 76 of the English Document Book. It is a letter from Hoess, Chief of the Amtsgruppe D-1, dated 13 January, 1944, to all the concentration camps requiring reports to Amtsgruppe D-II and Amtsgruppc D-III on the number of executions, transfers, number of inmates given special treatment in Auschwitz and so forth.
I next offer Document NO-1029 as Prosecution's Exhibit 65 found on Page 78 of the Document Book. The first letter on Page 78 is of very little interest. The letter on Page 79 is a letter to Amtsgruppe W by Mummenthey concerning an agreement between the Reich and DEST Industry on the allocation of prisoners for work.
On the mimeographed copy, the signature is indicated as being illegible. I determined, however, from looking at the original that the document appears to be signed by the Defendant Mummenthey.
It reads:
"Some time age a contract regarding the allocations of prisoners was drawn up for signature by the Reich on one hand and DEST on the other."
The whole matter was turned over to Volk. The letter states that it is Volk's Office and Amtsgruppe D's responsibility to take care of the contracts referred to in the first paragraph.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until 1:30 (A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1400 hours, 9 April 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal No. 2 is again in session.
DR. VON STAKELBERG (For the defendant Fanslau): May it please the Court, during the recess I was given the document NO-2672, which was offered by the prosecution as Exhibit 36 this morning.
Without wishing to define my attitude on the contents of this document, I have to raise a formal objection. That document contains under the heading "Office A-5" a correction in handwriting and the initials of the defendant Fanslau. That correction is wrong in its content and as a matter of form it has been incorrectly put down. While I was absent, the prosecution examined the defendant Fanslau, and as early as 28 March. I protested against this in writing and asked the authorities not to make use of the results of the examination. I must therefore formally object to these remarks being made part of the evidence.
MR. MC HANEY: Does the Tribunal have the exhibit before it? It is the chart of the WVHA, which has been sworn to by the defendant Pohl. It is really contained in the Volk information brief.
Firstly, I must apologize to the attorney for the defendant Fanslau because it is quite true that his client was interrogated without the attorney having been notified beforehand. Those things will happen in spite of the closest control being maintained by the prosecution. It happened in this instance because we had considerable difficulty getting this chart drawn and sworn to by the defendant Pohl and only after having drawn it and re-draw it about five times did we finally get it in a form which was considered satisfactory, and even then he asked that the prosecution have a member of each one of the Amtsgruppe of the WVHA initial that line of offices before he signed it. For that reason the defendant Fanslau was called up on very short notice to initial t** line of offices for Amtsgruppe A and his attorney was not notified, for which we are quite sorry, but we think no material damage has resul The objection to the form of the chart concerns itself with Office A-5-4, which originally on the German copy contained "concentration camps" and then some further German words underneath which I cannot read.
The defendant Fanslau struck out the words "concentration camp", or at least he appears to have struck out the word "concentration", leaving in the word "camp" and then inserted in handwriting, "Verwaltungs", and then some words I cannot read, meaning administrative officers. He apparently concedes that Office A-5 did make available administrative officers for the concentration camps.
However, all of that is a matter of interpretation. You cannot in a chart of this sort put in such detail as to explain precisely what each office was doing, and as a matter of fact, in the translation before the Court the expression "concentration camp" does not even appear. Does the Tribunal find Amt A-5?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but I don't find any of the notations that you are concerned with.
MR. MC HANEY: Do you find the Office A-5-4? That is the last one listed.
THE PRESIDENT: Administrative officers.
MR. MC HANEY: That is correct. So actually, as a matter of fact, on the translation there is nothing to which the attorney for the defendant Fanslau can find objection. On the original it is a little bit confused. The words "concentration camp" originally appeared opposite the Office A-5-4 and even --
THE PRESIDENT: As it comes to the Tribunal, those objectionable words do not appear.
MR. MC HANEY: That is correct. Of course, if they are contained in the original, it might be open to question as to precisely what this **fice had to do with concentration camps, if anything. That is, there ***still open a question of interpreting the charts.
THE PRESIDENT: If nothing had been said about it, the Tribunal would ** had the words "Administrative Officers" and nothing else before it.
MR. MC HANEY: Very true, and probably even the prosecution would not have noticed it.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: I believe that the words "Administrative Officers" belong to A-5-2. It says below, even if it only says "Administrative Officers" in the wrong place. But I have no objection to that.
THE PRESIDENT: The matters that you object to do not appear on the exhibit before the Court.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: As far as Exhibit 36 is concerned, I have to make formal objection also, that neither I myself nor my associate were called in when the defendant August Frank put his initials to the Office A. The formal objection, as far as I am concerned, is very important, substantially, and which I can only explain later on when I shall examine my client. But I should like to point out now that the main content of this objection is that by this chart the impression might be gained that all orders and directives which came from the top to the Office Groups D and W all went through Office Group A, and that is incorrect. I therefore object formally.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be overruled but the chart can be explained or objected to at the time your testimony is offered.
MR. MC HANEY: With the permission of the Tribunal, I would like to say a few words about certain motion pictures which the prosecution hopes to exhibit to the Tribunal. We have three such pictures. The first one is a picture made by the American authorities and shows conditions in German concentration camps which were overrun by the Allied armies. It has been exhibited to the International Military Tribunal and we shall ask that this Tribunal take judicial notice of its contents. The other two pictures were made by Russian authorities and show the conditions in the camps of Auschwitz and Maidanec, which were in Poland.
I would ask that the Tribunal hold a session for the purpose of exhibiting these movies on Saturday of this week for the reason that the only facilities available for the proper showing of the pictures are in Courtroom No. 1 where the medical case is now being tried. The American picture has an English sound track with a German translation which is transmitted through the earphones on the German channel.
The Russian films have a German sound track which will require translation and transmission through the English channel.
Consequently, we will need translation facilities in a place where the picture can be exhibited and that is only, as far as I know, in Courtroom No. 1. That courtroom will be available this Saturday; it will not be available the following Saturday for the reason that the Flick case will open that day with the opening statement by the prosecution.
So I ask that the Tribunal consider holding a session Saturday morning. I think the pictures will take two or three hours.
THE PRESIDENT: This Tribunal will be in session on Saturday morning in Courtroom No. 1 for the purpose of exhibiting the motion picture film that you mention.
MR. MC HANEY: Thank you.
One other point is that I would like to ask the Tribunal to instruct defense counsel when they put in applications, either for witnesses who have submitted affidavits on behalf of the prosecution, such as in the instance this morning of Hoess, or even when defense counsel themselves put in a request to have a witness brought here for the defense, that the defense specify in as much detail as is possible the purpose for which the witness is being called. That is, to state as precisely as it can be done, what material facts the defense counsel expect to elicit from the witness. In that way the prosecution may very well be able to stipulate that certain conditions existed and make it unnecessary to bring the witness here. In other cases the Tribunal may very well be in a position to say that we do not think that this point is material. In still other cases it will be possible, I think, for the Tribunal to say that these facts have been investigated already before some other Tribunal, as in the case of Hoess, who testified at great length before the IMT and very clearly stated that he was in Auschwitz during a period when 3,000,000 people were exterminated.
So, in so far as the prosecution can see, it would be a little bit unnecessary to bring a man here and have him testify to the same thing that is in issue with respect to the defendants. Of course, they may wish to investigate facts other than that but I think it is only fair that they state those things so that we all have a clear picture of what facts are attempted to be elicited from the witness so that we can know, we can stipulate, we can urge immateriality, and the Court will also be advised of those facts.
THE PRESIDENT: These requirements are all covered by the rules of this Court and if the application as it comes to the Chief of Counsel is not sufficiently informative you can raise the point before the witness is approved.
MR. MC HANEY: Very well, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is understood that the rule requires that the application state in some detail what it is proposed to have the witness testify to. That should be sufficiently detailed so that both the Court and the Chief of Counsel can determine whether it will be otherwise covered or whether it is material.
DR. GAWLIK: I would ask the Court to make a similar ruling for the witnesses for the prosecution. In my opinion it is not sufficient, as has happened before, that witnesses are merely told they should make statements oh the Auschwitz concentration camp. Such statements are on the blackboard of the defense counsel. It is, in our opinion, important for the prosecution to say who of the various defendants will be incriminated by the witnesses and in particular which of the alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, with which the various defendants are charged, are to be affirmed by these witnesses.
And the same applied for the affidavits and other means of evidence in regard to the fact that the Prosecution has in no way made clear what variations are to be made; that the Prosecution should, in the case of every single evidence, say in how far it wishes to use against the various defendants. This is the only way the Defense can produce the necessary rebuttal evidence. Otherwise, we are faced with a mystery and have to guess who is to be incriminated by the document, and what conclusions the Prosecution wishes to draw from that piece of evidence -- to the disadvantage of the various defendants.
THE PRESIDENT: We will conclude this discussion by saying that the rules of procedure of the Court apply to everyone--either for the Defense or for the Prosecution.
MR. ROBBINS: I next offer Document NO-1036, as Prosecution Exhibit 66. This is a memorandum dated 13 January 1944, initialed by the defendant Baier, and addressed to the Chief of Office W-4. The subject is a conversion into concentration camps of forced labor camps at Cracow, Lvov, Lublin and Radom-Blizyn. And the letter, I believe, is important enough to read in full.
"The Obergruppenfuehrer has approved the changes in organization of the German Equipment Works (that is the D.A.W.) resulting from the conversion of the above mentioned forced labor camps into Concentration Camps. Thus the Central Administration for the Government General of the German Equipment Works (the D.A.W.) can establish itself at Cracow and SS-Obersturmfuehrer Morwinkel be appointed head of the Central Administration. Will you please keep me informed of the start and working progress of the new Central Administration."
Initialled: Baier. The remainder of that some document is a report by the Chief of Office W-4 Hauptamtchef, apparently -
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Initialled by whom ?
MR. ROBBINS: By Baier; the first letter on page eighty --
JUDGE PHILLIPS: The document in my transcript is so I dim I can't read any of it.
MR. ROBBINS: Is that on page eighty, sir ? It is very dim. I think that the transcript will have the complete reproduction.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you read that letter, Mr.Robbins ?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes. "The Obergruppenfuehrer has approved the changes in organization of the German Equipment Works (D.A.W.) resulting from the conversion of the above-mentioned forced labor camps into Concentration Camps. Thus the Central Administration for the Government General of the German Equipment Works (D.E.W.) can be establish itself at Cracow and SS-Obersturmfuehrer Morwinkel be appointed head of the Central Administration. Will you please keep me informed of the start and working progress of the new Central Administration ?"
"Chief W"..... initialled "B" for Baier ...."SS-Oberfuehrer."
This illustrates the supervision which Staff W exercised over individual Aemter in Amtsgruppe W.
The balance of document 1036 is a memorandum by the Chief of W-4, Opperbeck, and contains the changes in organization of the DAW referred to in Baier's letter, which letter says that the changes have been approved by Pohl. Opperbeck's memorandum states: "By agreement between the Hauptamtchef, SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, and SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Koppe, Senior SS- and Police Officer at Cracow, all Forced Labor Camps at Cracow-Plaszow, all forced labor camps at Cracow-Plaszow, Lvov, Lublin, and Radom-Blizyn, established by the local SS- and Police Officers, are to be converted into Concentration Camps."
And dropping down to the paragraph number one: "The Cracow-Plaszow Works", the memorandum states "The shops in this camp, hitherto operated by the Senior SS-- and Police Officer Cracow will be taken over, effective from the same date, by Office W-4, German Equipment Works (DAW). The shops will be named DAW-German Equipment Works."
Turning over to the paragraph number two, "The Lwow Works", the memorandum states that "By agreement with Department D, prisoners held in Germany will be transferred to Lwow. The necessary cadre numbering some 250 men will forthwith be detailed for the German Equipment Works (DAW) from the plants at Sachsenhausen, Buchenwald and Dachau."
Turning to paragraph number three: "The Lublin Works", the memorandum states. "For this purpose 250 skilled men from the German Equipment Works plants at Dachau, Sachsenhausen, and Buchenwald will be transferred to form the cadre."
Similar statements are made with regard to the Radom works and the Blizyn works on the following pages.
I offer document NO 576 as Prosecution Exhibit 67, on page 86, which is a memorandum by Maurer of Amtsgruppe D, which shows the wage scales of prisoners working with industries, and for Amtsgruppe C. The memorandum is dated 24 February 1944, and shows the wages scales for prisoners in Office W-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8; and for Office Group C. I offer document 1584-PS, as Prosecution Exhibit 68, found on page 89, which is a letter from Himmler to Goering regarding the use of prisoners in the aviation industry, dated 9 March 1944, which was read in full by me in the opening statement. I offer Document NO - 1553on page 91, as Prosecution Exhibit 69, which is a directive by Rudolph Hoess to the heads of political departments of all concentration camps concerning reports on executions, deaths, and so forth. The second paragraph of the memorandum states in regard to general correspondence: "It is expressly forbidden to make requests to the RSHA or RKPA for camp releases. All such requests, whether they are made by the W-bureaux or other offices, are always to be sent to this office along with the personnel record and deportment report."
Paragraph 2 directs that, "It is also forbidden to make requests directly to the RSHA or the Reichsfuehrer-SS for executions."
The following paragraph says, "Requests for executions are at times signed by the Chief of the Political Departments. That won't do; they must either be signed by the commandant or his deputy."
Similarly, transfer of prisoners. The memorandum directs "orders for transfers are, on principle, only issued from here" -- referring to Amtsgruppe D.
Similarly, "Escape of Prisoners", "cases of death", "Applications for P.-Punishments", "Applications are to go through Amtsgruppe D". Similarly, for "Fog and Night (NN) Prisoners; "all correspondence of NN prisoners has to be submitted through our office."
I offer Document NO-1025, as Prosecution Exhibit 70.
THE. PRESIDENT: Mr. Robbins, can you identify the person who made this directive?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes; that is Liebehenschel, who is the Chief of Office D, one who was later succeeded by Rudolph Hoess.
THE PRESIDENT: Not a defendant--?
MR. ROBBINS: No, Your Honor, not a defendant.
Document NO-1025, Prosecution Exhibit 70, on page 96, is a letter from Mummenthey to Baier--both defendants--complaining that the commander of Mauthausen did not give sufficient rank to a works manager, and asking for an interview concerning the service grade, indicating Memmenthey's interests and the plant managers of amtsgruppe W. I offer Document NO-1984 as Prosecution Exhibit 71. This, according to the document, is a corrected statement of monetary requirements for the SS Main Economic and Administrative Office, Amt W-1, Commando DEST Rubble Utilization Duesseldorf for the period of December 1943 *t April 1944, and less the number of handymen basic wage rates amounts asked for, the fixed wages and the amounts to be refunded for the month listed on the document.
I next offer Document NO-076 as Prosecution Exhibit 72. This is a letter from Himmler to Pohl and others, a circular letter in fact, addressed to Pohl and to the WVHA, and others, stating that Himmler has control of the PW camps, and that Pohl is to be consulted in transferring PW's to labor camps, the latter reference appears at paragraph number four. The question of the labor allocation of the prisoners of war-- Well, excuse me. Start at the first of the sentence. The question, subject three, will be discussed by SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Berger with the Deputy Commander of the Reserve Army, SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Juettner, the question of the labor allocation of the prisoners of war with the SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl...."