Q. If you had received this report would you have made any suggestions or suggested any ideas about the conduct of business to Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl?
A. I am not able to say that at this point. In any case the manager, Lechler, was such an expert in this field that I couldn't have imposed on his suggestions.
Q. Did Lechler ever report any of his activities in connection with this or other firms of which he was manager to you personally?
A. As long as I was a shareholder, yes. That was the case until 1941 which becomes clear from one of the later passages of this document.
Q. Now, I will call your attention to page 8 of the original which is the next to the last paragraph on page 5, the end of section 3; it states that the capital of this concern was increased from 20,000 Reichsmarks to 1,720,000 Reichsmarks. Can you give me the explanation for the sudden increase of capital from June of '40 to June of '41?
A. In the same paragraph it also says that on 10 June 1941 a full meeting was held where this capital increase and the basic capital of 20,000 Marks was taken over, and that Frank left on the same date. The increase of capital was necessary because the establishment of a weaving plant and a large clothing factory had become necessary, for the reason which I have given on direct examination, which was that at that time the private firms which had manufactured clothing for inmates were so overworked with Wehrmacht orders that they were no longer able to carry out these orders with the result that by the increase of capital it became possible to extend the factory thereby making it possible in 1943 and '44 to have material which formerly we had to receive from the Reich Ministry of Economics processed.
Q. Even though subsequent to July of 1941 you state that you were not connected officially with this concern, were you not interested as Chief of Amtsgruppe B in the production of this firm?
A. Oh yes, I was.
Q. That was one of the sources of supply for manufactured goods for reissue to the units and the prisoners under your office?
A. Yes, in '43 and '44 it was the only enterprise even which still was in a position to deliver clothing for inmates to us.
Q. I should like for the witness to obtain Document Book 19. This is Document Number 1270 which is prosecution exhibit 61 and which is found on page 66.
THE PRESIDENT: Of Document Book 3?
MR. WALTON: Sir, my information is that it is Document 1270 found in Book 19.
THE PRESIDENT: It's in both books.
MR. WALTON: I see.
THE PRESIDENT: And it is Exhibit 61 in Document Book 3 but it is also in Book 19 on page 1. It had been offered in the previous book.
MR. WALTON: Yes sir. Is this a conference held on 13 February 1943?
THE PRESIDENT: This is a series of questions about Osti.
MR. WALTON: I am sorry. Apparently this is on page 1, the document to which I refer, page 1, NO-1270, Exhibit 61.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, they are both the same.
MR. WALTON: Yes sir.
Q. (By Mr. Walton) Now, witness, I ask you if you stated in your direct examination to the effect that this document is not a true picture of the actual occurrence? In other words, were you present at this conference mentioned in this document?
A. Yes, I was present at that conference.
Q. Now, this was on 13 February 1943 and you discussed such questions as the Jewish manpower available to Osti Industry, did you not?
A. Yes, I said on direct examination that these questions were not debated. Shortly after Horn had begun to put questions he was cut short by Pohl, who told him in fairly clear terms that that was not a routine task for a conference but that was up to the managers who had to convince themselves on the spot how matters stood and then make their decisions.
Only when they didn't know what to do next they could come back, but until then he did not wish to be bothered in this matter. That roughly was how this conference went. That Horn, in his file note, didn't put it quite like that, of course, should be understandable.
Q. And according to your statement only you and Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl were empowered to discuss these questions as set forth in this document; is that correct?
A. No, only Pohl was authorized to decide or to raise such questions. I was only consulted just like the other two participants, because I had taken part in the foundation of the Osti. That was the real reason. Decisions were only up to Pohl in all economic matters. I cannot recall a single occasion where a decision concerning Amtsgruppe W was made by me.
Q. Did Pohl request at any time on the Osti any suggestions or thoughts you might have had on a particular phase of these industries?
A. I am afraid I didn't quite follow you there.
Q. Did Pohl ever ask for your suggestions in regard to the East Industries?
A. From me, certainly not.
Q. Did he ever ask your advice concerning any phase of the East Industries?
A. No.
Q. Then you mean to tell us that you would go to these meetings and be perfectly silent and have nothing to say during the entire meeting?
A. That is just what I want to say.
Q. Now, at this particular time, in February of '43, is it not true that the labor potential of the German Reich was growing steadily weaker?
A. I know nothing about that.
Q. Is it not true that the East Industries together with the other industries owned by the WVHA were in a bad way for lack of manpower?
A. I don't know anything about that either.
Q. Now, I should like to call attention to Document Book 19. Does the witness have Book 19 on his desk?
A. Yes.
Q. Document NO-1265, which is prosecution exhibit 482 and found on page 7. Witness, I desire to ask you about the written words within the box on the right-hand side of the page. Is that or is it not a distribution list?
A. In this document I cannot see any such remark.
Q. On my document on the right-hand top of the page, under the word "stamp" it says "received 8 March 1943" and then appears "Staff W" five times and then the word file. Do you see that?
A. No, nothing of that sort is on my document.
Q. I withdraw the question then since his document doesn't contain this particular designation.
Now, this document is a letter from Dr. Horn to Dr. Hohberg. Who was Dr. Horn in the WVHA?
A. I don't know what he was in the WVHA. All I know is that Horn was appointed the second manager of the Osti. I believe he was an auditor before, but I am not quite sure.
Q. Now, in the first paragraph on page 2 of the original it states that you are slated to be one of the co-founders of Osti, as you have testified. I will ask you whether or not you knew that Osti was establishing factories at Trawniki?
A. No. No, I didn't know the locations of these individual factories. I was of the opinion that the foundation of the Osti was based on the fact that the Reichsfuehrer saw that Globocnik alone was not a very good economic leader, which is the reason why I think Himmler ordered Pohl to supervise all the factories which Globocnik had established. That was how I saw it, why the Osti was established. What other factories Osti had under it and how many I did not know nor did I see a single one of these factories.
Q. And you never were sufficiently interested in finding out just what the physical assets of any of these companies were of which you were co-founder?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, it may sound funny to you but it was really the fact. This participation in foundations of boards of directors I considered to be an order of Pohl. I carried out that order just like any other order, but to call me an important official in those things would be wrong. I only regarded myself as the man who was kept in reserve in the event something should happen to Pohl. I could then take over until Himmler had appointed a new successor.
Q Does the witness have before him the Document 111?
A Yes.
Q I should like for you to turn to Document NO-599, which is Prosecution's Exhibit 63, and I shall have to request the Court -
THE PRESIDENT: Page 74.
Q Thank you. Witness This is the minutes of a meeting at which you are supposed to have been present on September 7, 1943, is it not?
A That is correct, although I cannot recall the conference, but according to files I took part in it.
Q Now, do you remember anything in your career that concerned ten labor camps in the Lublin district?
A Mr. Prosecutor, I assume that this conference was a result of the foundation of the OSTI, and secondly it was the consequence of the transfer to Trieste of Globocnik. Globocnik was informed at the time that the camps which had been under him were now transferred to Office Group D. The actual management of these labor camps was not changed I assume; earlier they were under the direction of Globocnik and afterwards they were under Office Group D.
Q Then, this is the source of supply of labor for the East Industries, is it not?
A Yes, I assume that certainly.
Q Now, I should like to refer again to Document Book 19, Document NO-1271, which is the Fischer affidavit. I shall be very brief in since there are only one or two questions I want to ask the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: What was the number?
MR. WALTON: Document NO-1271, and it is Exhibit 491. I think the Fischer affidavit -- audit -- also appears in two or three document books.
THE PRESIDENT: This isn't an affidavit that we have; this is an audit.
MR. WALTON: I am sorry; I meant to correct the term that I used. It is an audit.
Q Does the witness have the document NO-1271 before him?
A Yes.
Q Now on page 1 of the original, the third paragraph, it states that the supervision of the company management, the charter provides for the board of directors, whose consent is necessary for certain legal transactions. During the life of OSTI, you were on the board of directors of this corporation, were you not?
A Not on the board of directors, but on the supervisory board.
Q The next line says that the partners of 19 March, 1943, the following board directors were appointed, and your name appears.
A Yes.
Q Then, you were a director in this concern, were you not?
A No, not a director. We did not have any directors. We had managers which is what you call directors. The board of directors had nothing to do with the actual management of the enterprises. That was the task of the manager.
Q Did you know when the East Industries were dissolved?
A Weel, they were dissolved in the autum of 1943.
Q What reason do you know that they decided to do away with the East Industries?
A The reason which was known to me at the time, I have already stated in my direct examination. I saw the reasons at that time in the transfer of Globocnik. The reason given here in this document, which I saw here for the first time, had never been known to me before.
Q Which reason are you inclined now to believe -- the one which is set up in the audit, or you onw reason that you formed at the time of the dissolution of the OSTI.
A I think both reason will have to serve.
Q Isn't it true that one reason which does not appear here, but which is fact and in truth was the main reason for the dissolution of OSTI, was that there was not enough concentration camp inmates to labor under the East Industries set-up?
A I did not know that reason, and I came across it for the first time in this trial.
Q Now, in Document Book 19 which you have before you, there is a document NO-1906-A and 1906-B, that is found on page 90, Prosecution Exhibit 493. Has the witness found the place?
A Yes.
Q. Now, there are minutes of a company meeting of the East Industries on 1 March, 1944. Do you remember signing these minutes?
A I cannot recall this occasion because such records I would sign so quickly that I am quite unable to recall it now. It usually happened that it was called up by the adjutant and asked if I would come over in the afternoon, or any other time, and see Pohl because I had to give a signature. Then I went along and was called in. The notary official was there; he read the transcript, I signed it, and I disappeared again. That was my entire activity as a shareholder or a member of the board of supervisors of the OSTI, and that was exactly what happened in all other cases too. These are three transcripts of notary records of the OSTI.
Q This is a particular meeting which should have impressed itself upon your memory. This was a meeting for the dissolution of the East Industries. Do you remember anything about this meeting which was different from the majority of meetings you attended?
A I do not know, Mr. Prosecutor whether you actually said conference or whether that was only in the translation. This was not a conference. As I have said before, I went to Pohl, the notary road the documents and both of us signed. No discussions took place but it also becomes dear that in the same breath when Globocnik had been transferred, the OSTI is being dissolved.
Q Now, I ask you to turn to Document Book XV, Document NO-514 page 40 of the English translation; it is Prosecution Exhibit 414.
A What is the number of the document please?
Q 514. Do you have the document?
A Yes.
Q On this document it says a conference for the preparation of a new wave scale for prisoners was hold at Pohl's office; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Now, according to these minutes, in the last paragraph, or rather the next to the last paragraph, it states that you participated in this conference, and you pointed out that it might be advisable to examine whether these rates could be afforded by the individual plants; and you were supported in this contention by the chief of Amtsgruppe W. Why were you cautions at this time about fixing the rates to be charged for inmate labor?
A I do not recall this conference -- whether the remark contained here in the file note is correctly reproduced, I am unable to say. I believe that if I had taken part in the conference which is proved by the document, I might have pointed out that the wage scale for inmates should be adjusted individually, according to the work done, and not that everything should be done in a uniform manner. That was my opinion.
Q Do you recall in March of 1944 or not the concentration camp inmates were then paid a regular wage?
A Baier told me about these wage scales for work. Whether they were actually paid at the time or whether that stage of affairs was ever reached, I don't know; but the document also shows by the fact that Baier especially points out my presence that this was an exceptional event and not a routine matter, because had I always been present in that sort of conference, Baier would not have made a special note of my attendance.
Will the witness turn to Document NO-1287 which is Prosecution Exhibit 389 and found on page 46. What was your functioning in the discussion which took place regarding the founding of the Volkswagen works at Fallersleben?
A. I said before on direct examination that I did not take part in this conference. I pointed out that the remark made in the third document - or rather in the document following this document which is signed by Dr. Hohberg - was made on 29 January, on the day of this conference.
Dr. Kammler's final note is dated five days later. As far as I know Dr. Hohberg at all, I think it is quite impossible that he would have said I had participated if I had not participated, but he can be asked about that when he is on the witness stand. I cannot recall this conference, at any rate, nor do I know why I should have taken part.
Q. At this time it would have been necessary to create another corporation to take over the property at Fallersleben. Do you know anything about that?
A. No, I know nothing about it.
Q. Document 2133 contained in Document Book 14, Prosecution's Exhibit 387, on page 41. Witness, what connection would you have with the establishment of industries at Stutthof?
A. I had no connection at all with the establishment of industries in Stutthof. This letter was sent to me for informative purposes. It is dated 24 January 1942 when I was chief of Office I. As chief of Office I, I had under me the Main Department I-1, the task of which was to buy land for the Reich. Excuse me; this is a mistake. It should be I-2. In this report it says that the Reich was to buy a piece of land and therefore that document was passed on to me. Also the date, 24 January 1942, shows that this matter was not carried out because on 1 February the WVHA was founded and there I had nothing to do with the purchase of land. The next document, 2159, proves, incidentally, that this piece of land had not yet been bought in 1944.
Q. Now I ask you to turn to Document NO-2116 which is Prosecution Exhibit 383 and it can be found on page 14 of Document Book 14.
Witness, I shall ask if this document is not a list of the concerns which operated under the DWB. You may state whether it is reasonably correct or not.
A. This shows the firms and the managers and sub-managers. At this date I am unable to say that it is correct, but I assume that it is correct.
Q. And this report shows that you were still connected as one of the principal stockholders or co-managers of the German Economic Works, does it not?
A. I have admitted all the time that from June 1941 until the end I was the second manager of the DWB.
Q. And also the second manager of all of the concerns which the DWB owned, is that right?
A. No, I was not manager of the subsidiary companies but only of the DWB.
Q. I would like the witness to consider--
THE PRESIDENT: Are there other documents?
MR. WALTON: One more, sir, and one exhibit which I shall introduce which is about five lines of handwritten material.
THE PRESIDENT: In order to divide up the interpreting evenly, we will call a recess now.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
(The hearing reconvened at 1525 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY MR. WALTON:
Q Now, Witness, I desire to direct your attention to the closing days of the month of April, 1945. Did you remain in Berlin during this time?
A No. On the 15th of April I went to the South with Pohl and the larger part of the WVHA.
Q Where did you go when you went south from Berlin?
A First to Dachau, then to Bayrisch-Zell, and finally to Tiersee.
Q Were you in Dachau in April of 1945?
AApproximately from the 17th to the 28th of April, 1945. However, I can't give you the exact date any more. Approximately around that time.
Q Were you at Dachau when prisoner transports from evacuated concentration camps arrived at Dachau?
A I was located at the training center of Dachau, where the guards were stationed. Whenever transports came they arrived in the concentration camp itself.
Q You never saw any prisoners then being evacuated from other concentration camps to Dachau, did you?
A I can't recall that any more today. It is quite possible that I did see such a transport. However, I don't know.
Q I will ask you this question: Were you during this time in the concentration camp at Dachau?
A I was not within the concentration camp itself during that time.
Q Did you at that particular time during your stay at Dachau attend the banquet given to the members of Pohl's staff?
A Well, it would be exaggerated to call it a banquet; it was a a dinner affair.
Q I submit to you, Document NO-2331, which you find in Document Book 21. It is found on page 30 of the Document Book 21 in the English.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A What is the number of the document, please?
QNO-2331. Do you have the document?
A Yes.
Q Then I ask you particularly to attend to the next to the last paragraph and the last paragraph to Page 3 of the original. In the paragraph which starts: "At about the same time" in the affidavit of Gerhardt Burboeck, which is the next to the last paragraph on Page 3 of the original, he states that he saw you in Dachau during the latter part of April. Then he goes ahead and gives some harrowing scenes in the next paragraph, which it is not necessary for this Court to inquire into at this particular time.
A I haven't found this part yet. I haven't found the spot where he refers to my name. Just where is this supposed to be? On what page?
THE PRESIDENT: Page 3.
Q Page 3 of the original affidavit. I presume the German follows the same course.
MR. WALTON: Apparently, sir, they have gotten the wrong affidavit of Burboeck in this particular document book which the witness has. In order to save time, I can withdraw the questions on this particular affidavit and proceed to the next or the last document if the Court so desires.
THE PRESIDENT: See if Dr. Haensel finds it there. Is any other counsel's document book Number XXI? The defendant has the right book?
DR. HAENSEL: This is the same as in the other book. It is not the some affidavit which is contained in the English book.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's go on.
BY MR. WALTON:
Q Witness, I believe that you stated on your direct examination that you did not have any personal contact with Himmler. Am I correct in my memory of this fact?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A I stated that during the war I came to see Himmler three or four times together with Pohl. That was only for official conferences. I did not have any other contact with Himmler at all.
Q Would it refresh your memory if I were to ask you if you ever received a gift from Himmler personally?
A Well, we always received a gift on our birthday. All officers received that gift if they had a certain grade. That is correct.
Q You received one of these gifts from Himmler; is that correct?
A Yes, I received one every birthday.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO): What was the gift that you received?
THE WITNESS: Well, that varied. Sometimes you would get a picture, a painting, or some chinaware. You would not get an original painting, however. It would just be a print.
BY MR. WALTON:
Q Witness, I submit herewith to you a photographic copy of a letter which I will ask you to identify.
THE PRESIDENT: This isn't impeaching. He admits the contents of the letter, doesn't he?
MR. WALTON: I don't mean to impeach him, sir. I want to know if this is a letter which he wrote to Himmler to thank him for this particular gift on this particular occasion. If he identifies the letter, I would then like to introduce it as an exhibit for the prosecution; and then I have finished.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
A Without having looked at the original, I admit being the author of this letter.
MR. WALTON: The prosecution at this time desires to introduce Document Number NO-1562, which is Prosecution Exhibit 571. No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions from defense counsel?
DR. HAENSEL (for the defendant Georg Loerner): I only want Court No. II, Case No. 4.to ask very few questions, your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q The Prosecution today has pointed out three documents in Document Book XIX, which represent a company resolution of the Osti of the 1st of March 1943. It is alleged that Loerner had signed it. This is the decision where Globocnik is being withdrawn as the manager. The other documents have similar contents, and they refer to the dissolution of the company. Can you recall whether these documents were dictated in your presence, or was this done in such a way that you went to a notary and that these documents had already been completed and were ready for signature?
A The latter is correct. The documents were completely ready to be signed.
Q Was this the usual procedure whenever companies were dissolved or when they were established?
A That was always the case. I came to these conferences. I heard the report. I signed and then I left again.
Q Do you know the story about the German general whose adjutant gave him a document to sign, and the adjutant tried to explain to him just what the contents were? The general then told him, "I'm not asking you what I am to sign but where I am to sign". Did you handle these cases in a similar manner?
A I don't want to extend that to my entire official activity but only to my participation in these economic enterprises. It applied to them. Otherwise I always looked at the matters carefully before signing them.
Q In our commercial law there is a regulation that certain files with a notary, for example, the establishment of a G.m.b.H., are to take place through a record by the notary. That is to say, the notary has to read the record before several persons concerned, and at the end there is a note that it is approved, planned, and signed. Then we have Court No. II, Case No. 4.other documents as, for example, the transfer of managers or the registration into the trade register where the signature is necessary and the certification by the notary, where the notary does not have to read it out loud.
Then we have notaries who also extend this simplified procedure to the records and one only has to sign whatever is placed before him. How was it when these companies were established? Were all the documents read or did you only have to sign them?
A I cannot state that exactly anymore. However, I am quite certain that a part of them was not read.
Q Or didn't it always go very quickly?
A Yes, always.
Q The main documents which the Prosecution has presented and read yesterday and today according to their place of capture, came from one and the same source, without any doubt. I believe it is not very hard to identify that source from which they originated. What do you think about this source, Mr. Loerner? Where did these documents come from?
A The documents came from the offices of the labor allocation officer Grimm at Buchenwald.
Q Therefore, all of them are documents which he either received, or they are his drafts, or they are matters which passed through his hands?
A Yes.
Q The Tribunal has asked you today whether you had any evidence to show that the supervision over I/5 as has been shown by the documents, was not transferred to Gluecks from September 1941 on, but that the transfer already took place in the spring of 1941. What was your answer to that?
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE PHILLIPS): Either the translation is wrong or your question is wrong. I did not ask the witness that. I don't know whether the translation is wrong or whether your question is Court No. II, Case No. 4.wrong.
DR. HAENSEL: I asked the question whether Loerner had been asked today whether he had any evidence to show that the direction of Office I/5 had already been transferred to Gluecks in the spring and not in the fall or September of 1941.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE PHILLIPS): That's correct, but that wasn't the translation we got.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
You answered "No." I think that this is the only question which you have not answered quite truthfully because I assume that the man Grimm who has been mentioned here and in whose office all these documents were found can also explain this whole problem to us. Since Grimm is located at Dachau, I request permission to try to see min and obtain an affidavit from him. Then I should like to present this affidavit in the further course of the trial so that we will be able to approach this problem somewhat closer in the future.
THE PRESIDENT: If you'll make the regular application, Dr. Haensel, it will be granted, and you may present it at any time before the end of the trial.
DR. HAENSEL: Thank you.
Q These documents show us a picture, which, however, should be explained some more. What was the idea of the labor allocation which I/5 had to deal with in the beginning in 1940?
A The idea of this assignment was to now have the allocation of labor regulated.
Q Before I/5 directed the labor allocation, did the inmates have to work also, or was forced labor, as the Prosecution calls it, introduced in this way?
A Well, the inmates always had to work.
Q What kind of work did they have to do before?
A They had to do a lot of useless work. They worked on things which were only decided upon by the commander or his personnel.
Q What was Office I/5 supposed to do now?
AAs I said before, they were to render the work more useful. That is to say, the waste of labor was to disappear. Everybody now was to got a job according to his strength and his capabilities. Therefore it could not happen that mechanics would be cleaning roads or that a baker would be put into a machine shop, and so forth. That in my opinion was the task of this labor allocation.
Q In Exhibit 567, an order of Burboeck of the 11th of April, 1941, he writes to the subordinates of Office I/5 as follows:
"At the same time every officer is to think about the appropriateness of establishing a useful card file index of the inmates." What does he mean by that?
A That was the beginning of an organization by professions because only by means of such an organization could the useful labor allocation take place, which I have described.
Q Was this allocation of labor also in the interests of the inmates as well as the agency where the inmates were working?
A I believe so. Of course, I have seen it myself during my imprisonment, just how much I would have liked to work when I was locked up and unable to perform any work whatsoever. If a person has to do some work, then it is better when he can do the sort of work in which he has been trained. It is better for him than to perform work of which he has no idea at all.
Q For example, an electrician should not be occupied with painting barns.
A Yes, that is exactly the example which I gave before.
Q Did I/5 achieve its goal within the short period of time?
A No.
Q Why not?
A Because Gleucks and his commanders did not permit it.
Q Why did they not permit it?
A Because they did not want any other agency to interfere with their work; in any case Gluecks wanted to achieve that he should be entrusted with these tasks. That is what I suggested later on.
Q Can you remember the Grimm affidavit, his report about his reception at Buchenwald?
A Yes.
Q How did it impress you at that time?
A That was not only the case with Grimm but that happened everywhere. The commanders from the very first opposed these men; and they sabotaged their tasks wherever they were able to do so.
Burboeck also reported to me frequently that it was practically impossible to continue working in this manner. It was impossible for us to carry out this work.
Q The Prosecution has this morning asked you a hypothetical question, I did not find it necessary to object to it because I was going to follow up this hypothetical question. The Golden Rule is that a hypothetical question is permissible if it exhausts all possibilities and if the answer then has a real factual value. What would you have been able to do? What stop would you have been able to take on the complaint of Grimm?
A There was nothing I could o. Only Gluecks could have taken any stops against Koch.
Q With whom were you feuding in this matter?
A With Gluecks.
Q Now, to ask you a leading question -- therefore you could not complain to Gluecks about these things.
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Were you personally able to enter the camp and to make a surprise check there and see whether the allocation of labor was actually functioning smoothly?
A That could be done only with Gluecks' permission. I could only enter a camp when I had received the permission of Gluecks.
Q By what is that shown?
A That is shown by his orders which are contained in the files here.
Q Whose order?
A. It was an order by Gluecks or the Reichsfuehrer, I don't know exactly.
Q Were you Gluecks' superior?
A No.
Q What was your rank and what rank did Gluecks have?