Satisfied?
DR. HOFFMAN: Yes.
DR. MULLER-THORGOW (Attorney for defendant Georg Loerner): May it please the Court, I would like to subscribe to what Dr. Hoffman said just now. It would appear that this is a purely private note because there is no signature, no date, and, above all, no letter heading and no file mark; in the left corner on top there are only the letters "SS Berlin". An official document of the SS WVHA would never have that sort of abbreviation. The file would always be written in full. The file number would be below that, such as the case in the next document, which is NO1288. That statement is of importance to defendant Georg Loerner because, as a matter of fact, Professor Dr. Schenk was never his subordinate. He was only formerly a member of Office Group B.
THE PRESIDENT: The fact remains that this paper was found in the official files of the SS. As we have previously ruled in connection with another document, that alone makes it admissible and the fact that it is unsigned may make it of less value or, perhaps, of no value, but the fact that it was a part of the official files makes it admissible for what it is worth. Recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHALL: All persons in the Court please take your seats.
Tribunal No. 2 is again in session.
MR. HIGGINS: Carrying on with the Prosecution's proof, I offer Document NO-1244 as Exhibit No. 45, Page 104, your Honors. This is an inter-office memorandum dated 6 September 1943 issued by Dr. Ing. Kammler, Chief of Amtsgruppe C, appointing Defendant Kiefer deputy chief of this division.
I offer NO-1016 as Prosecution Exhibit No. 46. This consists of a memorandum by Defendant Fanslau dated 1 July 1944, to the Chief of Office Group D and Staff W, requesting the submission of reports suitable as lecture material on the development of the SS and the organization and supply of the Waffen SS. The report requested, submitted for Defendant Volk, Staff W, sets out in detail the extent of the participation of Division W in economic enterprises.
I offer Document no. 498 as Exhibit No. 47.
DR. SEIDL (For Defendant Oswald Pohl): Mr. President, I object to the admissibility of this Document No. 498 as an exhibit namely due to the following reasons. At the end of this document there is a special annex, and I would appreciate if your Honors would take a look to this additional slip there. Prior to that there was a letter by the Defendant Oswald Pohl of the 19 November 1942. It is apparent that this letter by the Defendant Pohl of the 19th of November, 1942, has nothing to do with the first part of the whole document where it deals with an entirely different thing, and therefore I suggest that if the Document NO-498 is introduced as evidence this should only take place with the restriction that both documents which are contained there should be introduced separately, and particularly with reference to the first document that it be separated from the first part of the organizational chart made after the letter of the Defendant Pohl of 19 November 1942 which has nothing to do with the remaining contents of the document.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, the document has more parts which in my opinion do not belong to the organizational chart. There is a document chart here and from it one can not see what it has to do with the organizational chart, where it belongs and by whom this document schedule was set up, and also for what period of time. I therefore suggest that all these other parts which apparently do not belong to the organizational chart, if they be admitted, at least be separated and admitted in that fashion.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: On behalf of the Defendants Frank and Hans Loerner, I also object, as did my colleagues before me, to the introduction of this document. There is the first page, a description of the industrial organization of the WVHA. Then, however, comes a synopsis of the WVHA as such. And then, due to the fact that all these pages have been stapled together, one gains the impression that the Amtsgruppe A, to which my clients belonged, was a part of the industrial organization. That it was not so, will be shown later on, for which there is no time at the moment. For the time being, I object to this kind of formal stapling together of the document, which can create a wrong opinion on the part of this Tribunal.
I am of the opinion, Your Honors, that the document should be separated and the part I dealt with right now, the one referring to Amtsgruppe A, then no longer would be able to be given the inscription, "Organization of the WVHA." That is what I intended by my objection.
MR. ROBBINGS: I spoke to the research analyst, Mr. Siebe, who discovered this particular document in the WVHA building in Berlin. He said all of these pages were together. However, I am of the same opinion as the Defense Counsel, that they are separate and distinct. There is a part beginning on page 135, the letter by Pohl.
That is not a part of the same document as the preceding pages.
THE PRESIDENT: There seem to be four separate parts to this document, and we will mark them as Exhibits 47-A, B, C and D. 47-A in the English document Book will go from page 113 through page 125. That is including the words, "SS-Sturnbannfuehrer Klein." That is the last paragraph in 47-A. You will observe that a number of different men are mentioned by name - Mummenthey, Bobermin and so forth. The last one is Klein. Do you find that? That is the last of Exhibit 47-A.
Then begins 47-B, which goes through page 21 of the original document, and No. 9215, on the left. Do you find that? That is the end of 47-B.
Then the next is 47-C, page 22 of the original, page 134 of the English. It has the word, "creditors," at the top, "Register of Accounts." And the number, 230 -- one at the left, in the left-hand margin. Do you find that? That is 47-C.
And 47-D begins with "the letter of 19 November," page 135 of the English. Is that all clear now?
MR. ROBBINS: With respect to these documents, they were selected and assembled on the theory that these show very well the inter-relation of the various Amtsgruppen and of the conspiracy and collaboration that existed between and among the various documents. I would point out that these are not all of the documents which demonstrate the inter-relation, but that they are typical of the many documents which are contained in the various document books. We propose to quote from a few of the relevant documents, relevant material, and would point out at the same time that the quotations which we will give do not constitute all of the relevant material.
The first document in the Document Book is NO-2460, and I offer that as Prosecution Exhibit 48. I propose to quote only from the conclusion. This is an extract from the judgement of the International Military Tribunal, that part which declares the SS a criminal organization. The conclusion is found on page 11 of the Document Book.
"The SS was utilized for purposes which were criminal under the Charter, involving the persecution and extermination of the Jews, brutalities and killings in concentration camps, excesses in the administration of occupied territories, the administration of the slave labor program and the mistreatment and murder of prisoners of war."
I might also point out that the Court said that "knowledge of these criminal activities was sufficiently general to justify declaring that the SS was a criminal organization, to the extent hereinafter described."
I offer Document 1919-PS, on page 12 of Document Book 3, as Prosecution Exhibit 49. These are extracts from Himmler's speech at Posen to his Gruppenfuehrers, on the 4th of October, 1943, and extracts from Himmler's speech at Krakow in April, 1943. It contains the quotation which I gave in the opening statement, concerning Himmler's attitude about the Russian workers, where he said, "whether 10,000 Russian women fall down from exhaustion while digging an anti-tank ditch interests me only insofar as the anti-tank ditch for Germany is finished."
On page 14 of the Document Book Himmler speaks of the SS industrial concerns. He says on page 15:
"We have huge armament works in the concentration camps. This is the sphere of activity of our friend, SSObergruppenfuehrer Pohl. Every month we put in many millions of hours of work for armaments.
We tackle the most thankless tasks and - I must give this its due - whether in the concentration camps, in Pohl's industrial works, or outside at the offices of the Senior Executive SS and Police Officers or in the workshops of the Head Office of SS Administration, one thing is obvious: wherever we are, we are SS men."
Then the next subdivision of Himmler's speech concerning the clearing out of the Jews. Dropping down three paragraphs, Himmler says:
"We have taken from them what wealth they had. I have issued a strict order, which SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl has carried out, that this wealth should, as a matter of course, be handed over to the Reich without reserve."
I offer document NO-024, on page 27, as Prosecution Exhibit No. 50. This is a letter -- 2 letters; several letters, as a matter of fact, between three and twenty-one July 1942 -- regarding Pohl's securing foreign currency for the RSHA. In the letter on page 28, Himmler writes to Pohl asking Pohl to help him in this task with Reichminister Funk, "with whom I believe you are on good terms, and tell him for me that in addition to the great help he has already given us he could help me particularly with the activation of the work abroad for which I would be very greatful if he would give 250,000 marks in foreign currency more per month. We now receive 113,000 marks in foreign currency, but this is not nearly enough."
The next letter; Pohl says to Himmler that he has arranged for a visit with Reichminister Funk. "I do not doubt that I shall be able to arrange the matter as you wish it."
The letter on page 32: Pohl writes to Himmler, "Today I --"
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Mr. Robbins, when you say, "the next letter," might it not be better if you indicate the document?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, Your Honor; this is all part of Document NO-024. The document consists of, I believe, five letters.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: I see.
MR. ROBBINS: The letter dated 21 July 1942, which is a letter from Pohl to Himmler appearing on page 32 of the document book: Pohl writes that he was at the Reichminister for Economies, "there I talked to Undersecretary Landgrel, and then to Reichminister Funk--to each for an hour of most pleasant conversation."
And, dropping down to the paragraph number two, Pohl says, "there, after Reichminister Funk called me in, I told him of your request which you had submitted to me, and your letter of 3 July 1942.
In spite of the extremely strained conditions of foreign exchange, Reichminister Funk, without circumlocution, declared that he was ready to help us as much as possible. I should tell you, however, that the curve of our foreign currency, contrary to the curve of our foreign trade, is dropping to below zero."
This document demonstrates the close collaboration of Pohl with Himmler; also the functions of Pohl and duties outside of the WVHA. For instance, here he was helping Himmler obtain funds for the RSHA.
I offer now as Prosecution Exhibit 51, document 3868 PS, appearing on page 35 of the English document book. This is an affidavit of Rudolph Hoess regarding Auschwitz extermination camp. This was quoted from by Mr. McHaney in his opening statement, and I do not propose to read from it now.
DR. KRAUSS (Counsel for defendant Tschentscher): Your Honors, the Prosecution intends now to submit the statement by the concentration camp commander Hoess. The document book number three later on, namely, towards the end, contains a statement made by another concentration camp commander by the name of Pister; and that statement --or, rather, the statement of another administrative officer of a concentration camp by the name of Barneward,that these three witnesses are still alive. The statement partly contains certain obvious inaccuracies. The descriptions, therefore, should be clarified during a cross examination, and rectified by the Defense. It can be seen from today already that these three witnesses must be placed before cross examination by the Prosecution. I want you to consider, Your Honors, that these three statements should not be introduced as evidence, and, instead of that, to bring these three witnesses and put them at our disposal.
In spite of this, should these three statements be read, then I reserve myself the right that these three witnesses be put at our disposal for cross examination here. And I would appreciate it if the Court would do it today, namely, tell the Prosecution that these three witnesses be placed at our disposal for cross examination.
DR. SEIDL: Your Honors, I agree with the statement of my colleague. However, I wish to draw your attention to the following facts, in addition to that. The witness, Rudolph Hoess, was examined as a witness last year by the International Military Tribunal. At that time there was the possibility to examine the witness in a cross examination. Therefore, I suggest, with reference to this affidavit of the witness Hoess, that this should not be admitted; and, also, leave it to the Prosecution to choose between submitting an excerpt from the records of the International Military Tribunal with reference to this witness, Hoess, or not. With reference to the other affidavits I mentioned before--of the witnesses Barnewald and Pister--I suggest not to admit these affidavits because these witnesses can be brought here easily. At the present moment they are in Dachau. Should the Tribunal admit these two affidavits as evidence, then please only by seeing to it that this be dependent on the fact that the Prosecution bring these two last witnesses here before this Tribunal for cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it known where these witnesses are? Is it true that the three men are now in Dachau?
MR. ROBBINS: Rudolph Hoess, I know is standing trial in Warsaw. The other two, I believe, are in Dachau.
Your Honors, may I simply state for the record that under Article 7, this objection does not go to the admissibility but merely to the probative value of these affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand; but it involves a rather fundamental principle of American jurisprudence; that is, a right to be confronted by your witness and to cross examine him if he is available. It appears that the witness Hoess is not available. However, the Defense may offer in evidence the cross examination of this same witness before the International Military Tribunal. That is the best that can be done. We can not produce this man. As to the other two witnesses, we will admit these affidavits conditionally only if these two defendants are produced here and an opportunity given for cross examination. They are available; they are under the control of the American government, and it is a simple matter of transportation. This right of cross examination is a valuable one, and so long as the witnesses are accessible and can be producedthey should be. These affidavits will be admitted now, but only upon the condition that the two witnesses will later be produced and an opportunity given to cross examine them.
The witnesses referred to are -- Dr. Seidl, who are they?
DR. SEIDL: They are the witnesses Barnewald and Pister. These affidavits of these witnesses are at the end of the document book number three. That is, the affidavit by Barnewald has the document number NO-2149; and the one by Hermann Pister has the number 2327. Your Honors, we only started discussing this point because it is in factual connection with the affidavit of the witness.
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.)