Q. Well, does a syndikus have anything to do with the management of an industry?
A. I still want to inform you, Mr. Prosecutor, it depends. It does not necessarily have to be -- it can be -- but then again it can't be.
Q. Well, we will come back to that in a moment. You tell us you joined the Party, the NSDAP, in April 1933, is that correct?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. You say you disagreed with the principles of the Party?
A. That is correct, too.
Q. And in November 1933 you joined the General SS?
A. Yes, that's correct. On 5 November.
Q. And you joined the Allgemeine SS because a member of the Party told you you would have to do so. Is that right?
A. I don't get that. Would you please repeat that?
Q. You joined the Allgemeine SS because at a meeting in an auditorium in Berlin a member of the Party told you you would have to join the Allgemeine SS?
A. Yes. A leader of the junior lawyers held a speech, and as I said before, he said that all referendars should belong or had to join one of the Parties, the SA or something else, or would be releasedfired afterwards.
Q. You were not drafted into membership into the Allgemeine SS by the State or by any agency of the Reich, were you?
A. No, I wasn't.
Q. And then in 1937 you became a member of the Reiter-SS. What month was that?
A. I was transferred. I can't tell you the month for sure.
Q. You retained your membership in the Allgemeine SS, did you not?
A. Yes, the Reiter or mounter SS is part of the General SS.
Q. In 1940 you were transferred to the administrative service of the Waffen-SS?
A. No, that is not correct.
Q. You received an order as a member of the SS to become a member of the Waffen-SS?
A. That's not the reason. The Waffen-SS had finally succeeded in getting age groups from 1900 to 1912, who had not had service with the Wehrmacht yet were to be permitted into the Waffen-SS. As prior to the War I didn't have any Wehrmacht training I was conscripted.
Q. Witness, in 1940?
A. Yes.
Q. In 1940 civilians weren't being drafted into the Waffen-SS.
A. Yes, indeed. Just like any other soldier I was conscripted into the Waffen SS by a Wehrbezirks-commando(order). I have an affidavit which comes from the files in my agency which was transmitted by my defense counsel. Otherwise I would never have joined the WaffenSS but I would have gone to the Ack-Ack.
Q. Witness, is it true you received an order as a member of the SS to join the Waffen-SS?
A. No.
Q. The order was addressed to you as an SS man, wasn't it?
A. No, it wasn't.
Q. Isn't this true, witness, that in 1940 the Waffen-SS was transferring members of the Allgemeine SS and the Reiter-SS into the Waffen-SS, but was not conscripting non-members nor civilians?
A. That's not correct, Mr. Prosecutor. They did conscript several members of the General SS because they had their lists but they also conscripted others. Actually they couldn't conscript me at the time because I was suffering from a heart ailment. Actually until the end of the War I was not to be used in certain positions and I asked one of the doctors to shut one of his eyes and declare me not fit for service. That is the only way I did not go to the front.
Q. You didn't know then that it wasn't until 27 November 1943 until civilians were conscripted into the Waffen-SS. You state that that isn't true, is that right?
A. That is correct -- it is not right.
Q. The 1600 Reichmarks that you received per month from the DWB was a sum greater than the amount you would have received as a Hauptsturmfuehrer, it that correct?
A. Yes, of course but-----
Q. And you were given the choice of taking the $1600 a month or you were also, given the choice of taking the pay of a Hauptsturmfuehrer?
JUDGE MUSMANNO: You told the can $1600.
MR. ROBBINS: I am sorry, I earn 1600 Reichsmarks.
A. That choice was not left up to me.
Q. Didn't you tell us that Pohl told you that you could take the salary of a Hauptsturmfuehrer if you wanted to?
A. Yes, he did. That is correct but it was not up to me. I didn't have the choice. After all I had a family and two children and I had a very expensive apartment. I had two families to support. With the pay of a Hauptsturmfuehrer I couldn't possibly have been able to live. So that was not through duress for me, namely, to select the regular salary of a Hauptsturmfuehrer. Mr. Prosecutor, may I please ---
Q. Would you say that that economic necessity limited your choice?
A. Yes, quite so.
Q. Witness, at any time did you make a request to leave the Waffen SS?
A. I couldn't do that, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q. I just asked you if you did.
A. No.
Q. Did you make any request to leave the WVHA or the administrative service of the SS?
A. I repeatedly asked Mr. Pohl to let me go because I had such a position which I didn't like. I had to stomach the job all the time, just like a dog at the end of a chain.
I asked to go somewhere else but Herr Pohl said ---
Q. What did Herr Pohl say to you?
A. Herr Pohl said he couldn't let me go. Then towards the end of December I volunteered for the front and even that caused me struggle.
Q. When he told you he couldn't let you go, did he tell you you were indispensible in your job?
A. No, he didn't tell me that.
Q. Witness, I am interested in your statement the other day that your religion is Catholic. I notice that in your SS questionnaire you stated that your religion is Gottglaeubig.
A. That is correct.
Q. Will you tell us what connection that has with the SS.
A. Yes, I will.
Q. Very brief.
A. During all the years from 1941 on, from 1940 or prior to that, the SD was shadowing me. I told my wife that I would have to withdraw from the church but for her to stay in the church along with the children because after the War I intended to go somewhere else.
Q. And this was the official religion of the SS wasn't it?
A. No, it was not the official religion of the SS. But all human beings who were not members of one faith but who believed in God called themselves Gottglaeubig in Germany.
Q. Now, witness, you told us, going on to another matter, that you had nothing to do with inmate questions and had not contact with Amtsgruppe D. I want to show you a few documents and ask you in what capacity you carried out these functions as represented in the documents?
First I want to show you NO-1952.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: What will be the number of this for indentification, Mr. Robbins?
MR. ROBBINS: This is Exhibit 606, your Honor.
This is a letter dated 30 July 1943. Can you tell us who has signed the letter? Is this Maurer?
A. No, that's Gluecks.
Q. He was chief of Amtsgruppe D, was he not?
A. Yes. However, do let me read the letter first, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q. Witness, I don't want to go into detail in this regard, and I don't want to spend too much time on these documents. I just want to ask you if you can recall this transaction.
A. Mr. Prosecutor, however, I have to read the letter first. It is a letter which is dated 1943 and it has been four years since that. How do you want me to remember all about it ?
Q. Do you recall this transaction?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And in what capacity were you handling this matter?
A. The "Bohemia" had complained about the fact that they were to pay for the expenses of the barracks. That matter was submitted to Herr Pohl and Herr Pohl told me that I should write to Amtsgruppe D whereupon I wrote to Gruppenfuehrer Gluecks and I informed him of all the things Pohl told me, whereupon I received this answer here.
Q. Then, were you handling this matter as the personal referent of Pohl or as a legal expert in Amtsgruppe W?
A. Well that's difficult to say that. You could say in both capacities, actually. Mr. Prosecutor, you know I would like to tell you in advance that even my secretary did not always make a difference between that two. She wrote letters, sometimes wrote under Staff W and sometimes under Personal Referent and, if I didn't pay good attention, then the letters were sent out under the wrong heading. I really couldn't judge the matter so severely and differentiate between the two. So far as labor allocation of inmates was concerned I had nothing to do with it. I only had to take care of expenses which the "Bohemia" had to pay -- the barracks and the labor camps were to be established at their expense.
Q. And can you tell me what time the "Bohemia" started its production for war purposes?
A. I only found out about it later on and I found out it was for war purposes. Mr. Prosecutor, did I understand you correctly? I thought it was for war purposes. What do you mean by war purposes?
Q. Well, let me ask you, what was being produced by "Bohemia"?
A. Porcelain was produced there.
Q. The documents show that it was being converted in 1942 for the so-called war production. Can you tell me what was being produced after that time?
A. As far as I know, in 1943, porcelain was still being manufactured there. I do remember, however, and I can't tell you that for sure - that they also produced certain parts for planes, but I couldn't tell you what for certain. However, I imagine that the defendant Mummenthey can give you information on that.
Q. I should like to show you another document, witness, which is NO 3769, which I will mark as Prosecution Exhibit 607, and ask you if you recall this transaction?
A. I did not remember this transaction.
Q. You see your initials on the letter, do you not?
A. The letter does not look very familiar to me either. In any case, I do see that in the entry stamp up in the right hand corner my initials are there --- "BV" but, Mr. Prosecutor, these initials can be found on a whole number of letters. I already told my interrogator that that's the way things were. I had so much to do. The entire mail of DWB was put on my desk and every morning I had to have conferences. I couldn't read all the mail, whereupon I passed it on. Then again the messenger told me the mail would not be accepted unless I put my initials on it. I had to place my initials on it. It was thus that I would place my initials on lots of letters so that they could pass on. If I had to work on these letters then I would receive them again.
Q. Then, it is your testimony that you handled this only as it came by your desk and that you don't remember anything about the transaction?
A. Sometimes I would have fifty or sixty letters in the morning and I would then ----
Q. (Interrupting) I don't care what you sometimes did. I'm asking you about this particular transaction.
Now, you handled matters for this clearance office, didn't you?
A. No, the clearance office was not particularly my field of tasks. It was part of Dr. Wenner's field of tasks.
Q. You didn't work on these matters at all?
A. No, I didn't. It depended in case there should be a legal question, then I would work on them, but the clearance office as such was a task of the financial office.
Q. Wasn't there any legal question involved in this that drew your attention to it?
A. I can't remember anything in particular right now.
Q. Well, witness, you worked on matters of so-called inmate wages, didn't you?
A. What? Inmate wages?
Q. That's what I said.
A. No, I never did deal with inmate wages. That can be seen from the documents, that I was not working on inmate wages.
Q. Well, will you look at Document Book 15, NO. 514, Exhibit 414, on page 51 of the German, page 40 of the English. I ask you why it was that Baier sent you this memorandum concerning the wage scale for inmates?
A. Herr Baier only informed me of it. I didn't work on it. He informed all the collaborators of that. It can been seen from this document -- "Dr. Wenner, Dr. Hoffman, Dr. Weber and then Volk, after the return." I looked at it on the 15th of March, that is eight days later.
Q. You say that he informed all the collaborators. You were one of them, weren't you?
A. Yes, I was in Staff W.
Q. You were one of the collaborators on the wage plans, weren't you?
A. No, I wasn't. I can prove that, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q. Well, just answer my question. You never discussed the wage scale for inmates with anyone in Staff W? Is that your testimony?
A. Discussed it? Well, to discuss something is not to work on it. Maybe I did talk about it. I can't remember that, however. But I was not the lawyer who worked on inmate wages. That can be seen from Document NO---
Q. (Interrupting) With whom did you discuss this subject matter?
A. I told you before I couldn't remember, Mr. Prosecutor. Maybe I did speak about the inmate labor, but ---
Q. (Interrupting) Did you ever discuss the problem with Hoffmann?
A. I can't remember that, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q. Wenner?
A. I can't give you clear information about it.
Q. Well, do you remember discussing it with Wenner? You can answer that "yes" or "no".
A. I really can't remember.
Q. Did you discuss it with Pohl?
A. I can't remember that, either. I am sure I didn't discuss it with Herr Pohl.
Q. Well, you do remember that you didn't discuss it with Pohl? Is that right?
A. Well, I'm just telling you, Mr. Prosecutor, I really can't tell you that. I only can tell you what I know.
Q. Well, let's pass on to another matter, then.
A. Mr.Prosecutor, I just wanted to explain to you that the lawyer.
Q. (Interrupting) I don't want your explanations. You gave me your answer. I want to show you a document that I questioned Baier on and ask you if this came to your attention or whether you obtained knowledge of its contents? These are the letters concerning the Schieferol Company, and I'm going to show you Exhibit 582, NO. 3793, and Exhibit 583, NO-4073. Did you ever see these letters before?
A. I have not looked through all the letters as yet.
I am seeing these letters here for the first time.
Q. Did you have any conferences or discussions about the matters contained in these documents?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the nature of those discussions?
A. Herr Dr. Hoffman came to see me one day and he told me that he had gained knowledge of the fact that, in the Slate Oil Scientific Research GMBH, there was an epidemic. He said that this was not part of the competency of Staff W but that action was required and that one could not possibly discuss questions of competency in such an urgent moment. He asked me to please see that his adjutant would be permitted to speak to Pohl.
Whereupon I went to see the adjutant and the adjutant said that Herr Pohl was very busy with very urgent matters and couldn't possibly give an audience to anybody. Whereupon I told him that I would call Herr Pohl and asked him to connect me and asked Pohl to please see Dr. Hoffman right away. After half an hour Pohl told me Hoffmann could come and see him. Hoffman then was away all day long. In the evening he told me that Herr Pohl had sent him to an SS Gruppenfuehrer who was the chief dispenser and that there he had succeeded in having one whole wagon load sent to Erzingen with four men as a crew and full of medicine. That's all I know about this matter.
Q: Did Hoffmann tell you that more 230 had died there in 8 weeks in this construction detail?
A: Herr Dr. Hoffmann didn't tell me a thing about it. He just told me that an epidemic had broken out.
Q: Witness, you held a managerial position in this firm, didn't you? In Schiefer-Oel?
A: I? No.
Q: Let me show you a document that may throw some light on this matter. I haven't had time to have it translated, but will you look at page 3 of the document and see if that doesn't help your recollection? First, will you tell us what this document is?
A: This is a list of the company members of the Slate-Oil Company, Limited, signed by the Syndikus Dr. Leo Volk, Berlin, Lichterfelde West, 95 thousand marks, Berlin 5,000 marks.
Q: Does it show what position you held in the Schiefer-Oel Company?
A: I remember now. That is correct; if the document is correct here. This was written before a Notary Public Schneider, then I appeared in this Schiefer-Oel G.mb.H. as a representative probably, because Herr Loerner was not there, and besides that G.m.b.H. was nothing but a cloak. However, I was to release the shares immediately. The Schiefer-Oel G.m.b.H. never did work.
Q: I am just asking what position this document shows that you held.
A: Herr Poehl had ordered me to go there, as trustee of their company with 5,000 marks so that this company under cloak could be founded.
Q: I want to show you some additional documents which further indicate your activity in this matter, and first I show you NO-3901, which I will mark as prosecution's exhibit 308.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: 608.
MR. ROBBINS: I am sorry, 608 MR. ROBBINS:
Q: Do you recall this document, witness?
A: Let me finish it for a minute, please. Yes, I was present at that conference.
Q: This memorandum is signed by you, is it not?
A: Yes, I was present there in order to give a certificate on the conference, or as this is called, a conference notice.
Q: And the difficulties in connection with the clothing of the prisoners and in connection with the housing of the Estonians was discussed at this meeting?
A: The housing of the Esthonians, well they were not inmates. That can be seen from the following sentence. And their employees. The Estonians were free manpower. They were trained specialists concerning the Slate-Oel; it is known all over the world, that the Esthonians were the best in that field.
Q: Well, who is referred to by the word "prisoners" in the second sentence?
A: It is stated there -- "Difficulties arose, particularly in connection with the clothing of the prisoners."
Q: What is the word used there? Is it "Haeftlinge"?
A: Prisoners' clothing -- not prisoners.
Q: Well, the document is referring to the clothing of prisoners, is that right, clothing of Haeftlinge?
A: Yes. You see, the Slate-Oel Scientific Research Company which wanted to have that plant constructed, they used inmates, but that company was not part of the WVHA.
And Herr Pohl in his capacity as Chief of Amtsgruppe D was responsible for the clothing of inmates, and Amtsgruppe D by Georg Loerner respectively.
Q: And that is shown by the second paragraph of this document, isn't it?
A: That's why ...
Q: Just answer my question. It is true that you asked Sommer to assign 79 guards to this location, isn't it?
A: I received that order from Herr Pohl. I was to pass it on to Amtsgruppe D as a messenger.
Q: Just answer my questions, will you? You asked Sommer to assign 79 guards to this work location, yes or no?
A: No.
Q: Now, do we have to go back over these documents? Isn't that perfectly clear from the documents that have already been discussed?
A: I did not order Sommer.
Q: I did not say order. I asked if you didn't request Sommer. Of course, you couldn't give orders to Sommer.
A: By requesting, Mr. Prosecutor, that means that I had a special right to do that. I had received the order from Pohl and I simply passed it on.
Q: Witness, will you just try to answer the question I ask you. Did you request Sommer to sent 79 guards to work location?
A: Yes, I did. I told him Herr Pohl ordered 79 guards to be sent to Erzinger.
Q: I want to show you two other documents, witness, and ask in connection with this same matter, and ask you what part you played in these?
This is NO-3892, which I will mark as prosecution's Exhibit 609; and 3902 which I will mark as 610 for identification.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Witness, you knew what these guards were to do, did you not? Your passing on of the request from Pohl wasn't so much a matter of form that you weren't aware of what the guards were to do?
A: That was known to me, that the guards were to guard the inmates.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Which number is this?
MR. ROBBINS: 3892 is Exhibit 609.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q: I think the record will show that you testified that on yesterday that the specialist workers which you were requesting had nothing to do with inmate labor. I now ask you, first, as to document 3892, dated the 6th of October 1944 if this letter is signed by you?
A: Yesterday I did not testify that that had nothing to do with inmates, but rather I was asked, by defense counsel if it -
Q: Let's not go into that, the record will show what you testified. This is your letter, isn't it?
A: Yes, that is correct.
Q: And it is true that you requested these specialists who would select workers among the inmate laborers, isn't it?
A: I did not request the workers. I told you before, the workers were assigned to the Slate-Oel Research Company. Hauptmann, Freiherr vikruederer...
Q: If you are not going to answer my questions, we will just go on to something else.
I want to show you one last document, and I think these letters will speak for themselves. I want to show you another document concerned with this matter.
DR. FROESCHMANN (Counsel for defendant Mummenthey): Your Honor, I object to the introduction of these documents. The documents can only be submitted in order to last the veracity of the witness, but if the witness did not ask any questions in connection with that introduction, I understand that the introduction of a document -
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, I think the documents will clearly contradict the testimony of the witness, the testimony that he gave yesterday. I don't think it is necessary, unless the Tribunal wants me to ask the same questions that his counsel asked him. I think that would be a waste of time. I think we can identify these documents, and perhaps save time that way.
I intend to ask him a few questions. However, he persists in ignoring the questions.
THE PRESIDENT: If the document seems to contradict the witness and there is some explanation for it, his own counsel can question him afterward for that explanation. BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q: Witness, let's see if we can get an answer on these documents.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Mr. Robbins, I don't think this witness ever admitted signing the document, Exhibit 609. You asked the question. I have never heard his answer, whether he signed it or not.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q: Is that your signature on Document 3892, witness, Exhibit 609?
A: Yes, indeed, Mr. Federal Judge.
Q: Did you receive the other document, NO-3902?
This is addressed to the WVHA Personal Referent.
A: I couldn't tell you that because whenever I received a letter I initialed it.
Q: You can tell that from Exhibit 609, the first letter that I gave you.
A: I have to assume that I received it.
Q: Well, you know very well that you received it. You don't have any doubt in your mind, do you?
A: I couldn't know. How am I to know that. I can assume it -- but not know. I am not going to deny it, in the first place.
Q: Well, witness, look at the second sentence in your letter dated the sixth of October. It says, "Thereupon Standartenfuehrer Maurer informed me...so and so... Doesn't that refer to Maurer's cable which is 3902? Can't you tell that?
A: The telegram? You asked me about the telegram? You asked me if I received the telegram? The telegram, however, refers to a letter of the 30th of August, and now you are asking me if the 23rd of August letter refers to the telegram. That can't be.
Q: No, I am asking you if the 6th of October doesn't refer to the telegram which is NO-3902.
A: The letter dated the 6th of October does not refer to the telegram.
Q: Well, then what way did Maurer inform you of the matter that you state here -
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q: Witness, look on Document 2902, right under the word "Subject, REF". Your letter of 23 August, 1944. "Dr. K." Who does that refer to?
A: That refers to me.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q: Witness, I want to show you another document and ask you if you can identify it. This is NO-3893, which I will mark as Prosecution Exhibit 611.
Do you recall this conference, witness, that is referred to in Exhibit 611?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: You attended the conference?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Do you recall that it was stated that Himmler had made Pohl personally responsible for supplying the Waffen-SS and the Army at hope with oil from oil containing slate?
A: Yes.
Q: Before leaving this complex, witness, I want to see if I understand your testimony. Is your testimony that you did not hear that working conditions were -- as one of the letters describes them -- intolerable and that inmate workers were dying at an alarming rate? You didn't learn that?
A: No, I didn't know that inmates were dying in alarming numbers. Of course, I could assume it because Herr Hoffmann had told me there was an epidemic and usually people die in an epidemic. But I saw to it right away that Dr. Hoffmann could bring the matter in order -
Q: What time-- What date was it that Hoffmann talked to you about this?
A: I couldn't tell you that today.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Who wrote this letter, Mr. Robbins.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q: Can you tell us, witness, who wrote the letter which is NO-389? Is that Jacobi?
A: No, this is not my letter.
Q: Whose signature is at the bottom?
A: Herr Prof. Krauch. He also had taken along a collaborator and Herr Pohl asked me to go and join him in order to make a conference note.
After the conference Prof. Krauch's specialist said he would make the conference note.
Q: Is it also your testimony that oil was never prosuced at this location?
A: I didn't get that.
Q: Was oil ever produced at this location?
A: I don't know that. I was never there. After that I was transferred to the front-line duty. I don't know it.
Q: I think you also testified that you did not hold a managerial position in a company that used inmate labor, is that correct?
A: Yes, that is correct.
Q: You did not hold any position on the board of directors or the board of supervisors, nor were you a prokurist.
A: In all the share companies, in Aktiengesellschaften, I was a member of the supervisory board, but the supervisory boards never met. Herr Pohl simply made me a member of the supervisory so that I could see to it that all regulations under commercial law were complied with. We also had the commercial law of 1938 which was based on the leader principle according to which the president that is the chairman...