Sommer Document No. 29 I shall not offer here because it is also an affidavit of George Rammler, who has also been heard as a witness.
I shall submit Sommer Document No. 30 as Exhibit No. 28. It contains the executive regulations of the Reich Minister of Justice about the increased labor allocations of inmates.
As Exhibit No. 29 I shall offer Document No. Sommer 31. This is a circular of the Reich Minister of Justice of 10 May 1939 about the labor allocation of inmates.
As Exhibit No. 30 I shall offer Sommer Document No. 32. This is an excerpt from the penal executive regulations. This is from the official publication of the Reich Ministry of Justice.
As Exhibit No. 31 I shall offer Sommer Document No. 33, which contains the so frequently mentioned Fuehrer Order. It is different from the formulations of the Fuehrer Order presented by other Defense Counsel in that this is from September, 1941 and was extended to officials, employees and workers.
I am now coming to Supplement No. 1 of the Sommer Document Book. As Exhibit No. 32 I want to offer Sommer Document No. 34. It contains the executive regulations of the Reich Minister of Justice about the duty of pre-trial-confinement inmates to work.
As Sommer Document No. 35 I want to submit an excerpt from the law for the accident insurance facilities for inmates, and in particular I quoted Article 7 from this law because in a Prosecution document reference was made particularly to this paragraph.
As Exhibit No. 34 I want to offer Sommer Document No. 36. This is an excerpt from the decree concerning accident insurance facilities for inmates of 21 November 1939.
From Supplement No. 2 of the Sommer Document Book I want to prea*** as Exhibit No. 35 Document No. 38, since 37 has already been submitted as Exhibit 1 and Sommer Document No. 38 is an affidavit by George Rammler, who has been heard here as a witness. I showed Rammler the Photographs of the block leader Sommer or from Auschwitz, who was imprisoned in Neuengamme for a while, and Hammler stated that these photograph were the pictures of the man who he stated here was Sommer.
As exhibit 36 I offer Sommer Document No. 39, which is an affidavit by Ernst Schultz, who was in charge of the motor pool of Office Group D at Oranienburg. Schultz states in this affidavit and explains the possibility that Sommer might use a motor vehicle.
As Exhibit No. 37 I offer Sommer Document No. 40, which is an affidavit by Karl Kaiser. Karl Kaiser was a master stone processing plant in Oranienburg, which was subordinated to the DEST. In this position he met the defendant Sommer, and he comments on the work of the defendant Sommer and, as far as he was acquainted with it, about the defendant Sommer's social attitude. Kaiser then confirms that during the entire time 1942 until 1945 Sommer was in the Office D-II and not at Auschwitz. With regard to the testimony of the witness Bilsky, Kaiser states that from his knowledge of the person of the defendant Sommer there must be a serious mistake in identity here.
As Exhibit No. 38, I want to offer Sommer Document No. 41, which is an extract from the SS Bulletin of Personnel Changes. It is from the year 1944, about Sommer's promotion to SS Haupsturmfuehrer, effective 20 April 1944.
I have now reached the conclusion of my presentation of documents for today. The affidavit of Sanner, which has been presented by the prosecution and the testimony of the witness Sanner here in the witness stand on cross examination have caused me to submit additional documents. These documents are just about to be translated, and I would like to reserve to myself the right to present them as soon as the translation of these documents has been completed.
DR. MAAS (Counsel for defendant Hohberg): Your Honor, before I begin my presentation of documents, I would like to say in connection with the introduction of the Prosecution documents yesterday in Document Books 22 and 24 that in the cross examination of the defendant Hohberg the Prosecution has offered three documents for identification without any previous notice. These documents were to show that Dr. Hohberg worked for the Apolinaris, A.G., having been commissioned as trustee for that plant. I have tried to establish contact with the Prosecution so that a German copy of these documents may be turned over to me. First of all, I was told that these documents were still being prepared. However, It also seems important for me that I should get a look at the originals, and that is why I asked the Prosecution to permit me to look at them. I was informed that these originals had been lost in the meantime.
It is important for me to look at the originals because it becomes apparent only from the originals that the one document, which is a report of Hohberg to Pohl in this matter, was only drafted in the original and was never actually sent out. It is important to show that the whole matter of Hohberg and Apolinaris, as far as Dr. Hohberg was involved in it, was actually never in effect, and I therefore request that these three documents, which are not in the German edition of Document Book 24, should not be admitted in evidence unless the Prosecution is actually able to present the originals.
Furthermore, I would like to make the following statement on that: From the District Court at Nauenau I had an excerpt from the Commercial Register sent to me, and this Register shows clearly that Dr. Hohberg was never appointed commissioner with Apolinaris, but that Dr. Wuerz, the gentleman described by Dr. Hohberg, was appointed as the administrator of Apolinaris. The document is just being translated, and as soon as the translation has been completed, I shall present it.
However, I want to maintain my request that these three original documents with regard to the Apolinaris should not be admitted because the originals can not be procured anymore by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give me the numbers of those documents, or the numbers of the Exhibits?
DR. MAAS: The documents bear the number No. 4386, and they have the Exhibit No. 580. They are listed in the index of the German Document Book. However, they are actually not included in the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the number of the document book?
DR. MAAS: This is Document Book No. 24.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, the next document now? You spoke of three of them.
DR. MAAS: These three documents were compiled under the same document number, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Is a German translation included in your book?
DR. MAAS: No, Your Honor, in the German Document Book No. 24. these documents are only listed in the index, but the documents are not actually contained in the translation. I have tried, repeatedly to obtain the German translation and copies from the Prosecution, but I have not succeeded in doing so. Mr. Robbins told me that only the English translation was still in existence.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, you have not had a translation in German and you have not been able to see the original?
DR. MAAS: No, Your Honor, I have requested Mr. Robbins to let me look at the originals. However, he was unable to do that because he told me that the originals, as well as the photostatic copies, had been lost.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we'll take the matter up with Mr. Robbins the next time he is in the Courtroom.
DR. MAAS: Thank you very much, Your Honor.
I am now going to begin my presentation of the Hohberg Document Book, and my colleagues have considered this to contain so many secrets.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we'll let you start after the recess. We'll only interrupt you in a few minutes, so you may start at a quarter of two. Recess.
THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal will recess until 1345 hours.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1400 hours, 26 August 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. MAAS: Dr. Maas for Defendant Hohberg.
If the Tribunal please, I shall now begin to submit my documents. In view of the fact that this document material is somewhat extensive I shall confine myself to pointing out only the most essential points, and I should appreciate it if the Tribunal would take judicial knowledge of the balance of the documents. The last document which has been submitted was Exhibit 42. I have just been told the first document in Document Book II for Hohberg is Hohberg No. 40, and I shall offer it as Exhibit No. 43. This is an affidavit by Frau Lucie Hohberg who is the defendant's stepmother. She is a French citizen. Should the Court not have the English edition in front of it I have three copies here.
THE PRESIDENT: We have it.
DR. MAAS: From the affidavit by the defendant's stepmother it becomes clear that the defendant, Dr. Hohberg, on the basis of the education given him in his paternal home, could never have been an enthusiastic National Socialist. The mother testifies that the defendant from the beginning saw through the aims of the National Socialist system and that he drew her attention to the similarity between the fight against Jewry as it was propagandized, at first by the Nordland Publishing House, and the fight launched against the two main churches in Germany to which the anti--Jewish actions were merely a prelude.
The next document I submit Hohberg No. 41, which will be Exhibit No. 44. This is an affidavit by the Reverend Otto Hagmaier who was at the university together with Hohberg's father. He is intimately acquainted with Hohberg's family, knows Hohberg from his earliest childhood, and is therefore able to give a clear description of his character, particularly in reference to his political attitude. From this affidavit it may be gleaned that it was Dr. Hohberg's aim from the beginning to undermine the National Socialist system by counter propaganda, after, as he has stated himself, it was practically impossible to oppose certain specified measures.
The next two documents, Hohberg 42 and 43, I shall not submit. The first document has become superfluous by the evidence, and the second affidavit has been given by Dr. Albert Tenbergen whom we have heard here as a witness. These two affidavits were included in my book because at that time we did not know whether this witness would appear himself before this Tribunal.
The next document is Hohberg No. 44 which will become Exhibit No.45. This is an affidavit by Werner Weissenborn, the man in charge of a taxation department of the Siemens-Reineke concern at Erlangen. Herr Weissenborn was together with Hohberg between '36 and '38 when Dr. Hohberg was still an auditor with the Finance-President in Berlin. I might draw the Court's special attention to the statements made by Weissenborn about Dr. Hohberg. When he was working at the Alexander Finance Office in Berlin he was suggested by his superior officer as a member of the NSDAP without his knowledge in order to promote him more rapidly in his profession. Hohberg was then invited to report to the party office, to the Ortsgruppe to be precise, and had to state there that he would refuse to collaborate with them in any way. Hohberg, therefore, was not received into the Party, and that should be regarded as the reason why Hohberg, as he saw that he could not get on in his professional career, terminated his work with that department.
The next document will be Hohberg No. 45, which I shall not offer as the evidence has made this superfluous. The same applies to the next document, Hohberg No. 46. I shall not offer that either because Dr. Max Wolf, who has made this statement, has already appeared here as a witness, and when the affidavit was given at the time we were not sure whether Dr. Max Wolf would really appear here or not.
The next document will be Hohberg No. 47 , which it Exhibit No. 46.
This is an affidavit by Walter Bergner, who is a commercial artist by profession. From there it may be gleaned that he and Hohberg were together between '41 and '43, in close personal contact, which is the reason why he can draw a clear picture of Hohberg's personality and political attitude. He reports in particular that Hohberg, in accordance with his fundamental attitude, contributed to the fact that he would utilize the knowledge which he had gathered through his work with DWB for as large a circle as possible, thus to contribute in undermining the National Socialist system and all problems connected therewith.
I shall then submit Hohberg Document No. 48 which will be Exhibit No. 47. This is an affidavit by Fran Edith Schmiel, the wife of Schmiel, who, together with Hohberg, was an auditor with the DWB. This document shows that Hohberg and he were particularly close friends because this man was an anti-Fascist and formerly a member of the Communist Party, and that was the reason why Hohberg had special confidence in him. The affiant also reports that Hohberg pursued the aim of transferring the DWB concern by shifting the capital to the Reich and thereby taking it away from the SS.
I shall then submit Hohberg Document No. 49, which will be Exhibit No. 48. This is an affidavit by Emil Eischer who was together with Hohberg after the latter had left DWB, and although he cannot say anything about the counts of the indictment, he can make statements about what Hohberg told him at the time about his work for the DWB and his position within the organization.
I shall then submit Hohberg No. 50, which will become Exhibit No. 49. This is an affidavit by Konrad Heidenreich who is the fatherin-law of Dr. May, who has been so frequently mentioned in this trial. He makes various statements about the true background of the May affair. In particular he explains that Hohberg at that time did everything he could for his son-in-law when the latter was arrested by the Gestapo.
The next affidavit is of a similar trend. This is Document No. 51 which I shall offer as Exhibit No. 50. It is an affidavit by the wife of Dr. May, and she also confirms that Hohberg did much for her husband when he had been arrested by the Gestapo. From what her husband told her she gives the small details about what Hohberg did and what his position was.
The next document is Document No. 52 which shall offer as Exhibit No. 51, an affidavit by Kurt Brune, a merchant. He is in a position to give us more details about the program to build better and bigger homes, and for the rest he gives us details about the connections between the May affair and Hohberg, particularly in reference to the fact that Hohberg reported to him at the time that he had been forbidden by Pohl to do anything for May.
The next document is Document No. 53, Exhibit No. 52, an affidavit by Dujardin. He gives us a picture of Hohberg's character, particularly with reference to his anti-Fascist attitude. He also gives us details about what Hohberg told him about his activity in the WVHA at the time.
Document No. 54 will be Exhibit No. 53. It is an affidavit by Tideman Ulrich, Lemberg, who is an author and taxation expert. He again, from what Hohberg told him at the time, is in a position to tell us that Hohberg always was very anxious to be regarded as an independent auditor, and that he never did agree with the political aims of the WVHA - let alone the SS. On the contrary, in accordance with his pre-conceived plan, he expressed to Ulrich Lemberg details of the things which he had observed within his work.
Document No. 55 will become Exhibit No. 54 and is an affidavit by Dr. Joseph Waelken, who is now the public prosecutor in Thuringia, and who, under the Nazis, was persecuted because of his anti-Fascist attitude. He had been dismissed from his job. At that time, Hohberg also passed on information about his intended aims with the DWD, information in particular about the fact that he intended to transfer the DWB to the Reich by taking up the well-known thirty millions credit.
The next document, Hohberg No. 56 which will become Exhibit No. 55, is an affidavit made out by the same Dr. Joseph Waelken. He tells us that Hohberg was unpopular and had great difficulties because of his anti-Fascist attitude. He constantly faced the danger, through his propaganda, of being arrested and sentenced one day.
Of the same trend are the next documents, Hohberg 57. These are again statements by two fellow-soldiers of the defendant Hohberg who, from their own observations, cannot say anything about the subject matter of the indictment but who are in a position to say what Hohberg told them about his work, about his aims with the DWD at that time, and what the struggle was within the organization between himself and the other leaders.
This is, as I said, Document No. 57, Exhibit No. 56, an affidavit by Willi Haltenorth.
Document No. 58 which will be Exhibit No. 57 is an affidavit by Wilhelm Herth, which again speaks about the same topics. The same applies to Document 59, which will be exhibit No. 58. This is an affidavit of another fellow-soldier of Dr. Hohberg's, Hermann Goerke, who, on the whole, makes statements of a similar nature.
The three following documents were given by persons who belonged to that circle of resistance workers about whom Hohberg has been telling us. They belonged to different circles, actually. All three of them testify that in the house of Herr Passmann, who is himself one of the affiants, they met regularly, met Hohberg on those occasions, and that Hohberg, by what he told them about the incidents in concentration camps and the incidents connected with the slave labor program, considerably helped to undermine the National Socialist system.
This is Document No. 60, which will become Exhibit No, 59. This is an affidavit by Dr. Kurt Baum. Then there is Document No. 61, which will become Exhibit No. 60. This is a. statement given by Dr. Walter Jaenecke, who was a Rittmeister with the OKW in the Foreign Department.
The next document is No. 52, which will be Exhibit No. 61. It is an affidavit by the well-known Eugen Passmann who explains that in his house members of a number of resistance groups met regularly, and that Hohberg frequented his house, and that it was there that he informed the members of the resistance movement of relevant material.
I shall now come to the Appendix No. 1, to Document Book 2. Should the Court not have the English version in front of them, I have here three more copies. The first document in this book is Exhibit 63, which will be given Exhibit number 62. This is an affidavit of one Johann Stein, who was once upon a time an SS-Sturmbannfuehrer and an expert in the personnel office of the WVHA.
This affidavit shows that attempts were made as late as 1945 to get Hohberg into the Waffen-SS, that Hohberg, however, escaped this fate by running away.
Document No. 64 which will he Exhibit No. 63 is an affidavit of similar content. It was given by Karl Morgenthaler, who, incidentally has known Hohberg ever since 1934, and who has heard from Hohherg a number of details of the attempted transfered to the Waffen-SS.
The next document is Document 65, which will become Exhibit No. 64. It is an affidavit by Max Bodemer which proves that Hohberg, after his discharge from the Army, no longer entertained any relations with the SS, and that Hohberg did not accept an offer to act as a liaison officer between Keppler's staff and Pohl.
Document No. 66 has already been offered as Exhibit No. 41. Document No. 67 will be Exhibit No. 65.
I should like to draw the Court's attention to this particular affidavit because here we are concerned with an affidavit by Richard Ansorge, who, since 1941, acted as an auditor under Hohberg and then later on was a commercial employee of the DWB until February, 1945. He is, therefore, well informed about conditions in Staff-W.
I should like to read one brief sentence which, it seems to me, is an important one. It is contained on the first page of the affidavit, the next-to-the-last paragraph in the German document book. Ansorge says here: "At no time was Dr. Hohberg chief of Staff W."
The next document, Hohberg No. 68, which will become Exhibit No. 66, is also an affidavit by the same Richard Ansorge in which he gives additional statements to the previous statement. In particular, he says there that the position of Chief-W was unlike the position of that of the Chief of Staff-W. This, if Your Honors please, brings me to the conclusion of submitting my documents. I should like to add that I have a few documents left which are still with the Translation Section and which, I hope, will soon reach the Court within the course of this week.
I should like, therefore, to reserve the right of offering these few documents, the contents of which are extremely important, particularly because one of them is concerned with those Prosecution documents dealing with the Apolinaris affair.
MISS JOHNSON: On behalf of the Prosecution we desire to withdraw Exhibit 580 which was Document No. 4386, found in Document Book No. 24. Counsel for Defendant Hohberg made mention of that document this morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Five-eighty?
MISS JOHNSON: Five-eighty.
DR. MAAS (Counsel for defendant Hohberg): I am extremely sorry, Your Honor, I did not quite follow.
THE PRESIDENT: Prosecution has withdrawn the exhibit which you objected to, Number 580, in Document Book No. 24, because they had lost the original. We are therefore, striking it from the record.
DR. MAAS: Thank you very much, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Any documents to be offered by other Defense Counsel?
DR. PRACHT (Counsel for Dr. Froeschmann on behalf of Mummenthey):
If the Tribunal please, Dr. Froeschmann intended to submit Mummenthey Document Books I and II and II and Supplement I: but there was a technical hitch. Document Book III does not seem to be completed as yet - at least as far as the translation into English is concerned. Unhappily we had this delay, and I would like to ask the Court to have the recess a little earlier perhaps so that immediately after the recess Dr. Froeschmann could begin with the submission of his documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, why doesn't he begin with those that are ready?
DR. PRACHT: If Your Honors please, he is still waiting in vain for the last volume: Volume III - so that he can offer everything at once.
THE PRESIDENT: Why doesn't he begin with Volume I? By the time he finishes that, Volume III will be ready.
DR. PRACHT: Mr. President, he will certainly do this at once, only I have to inform him that he should come here and start on I and II. That was the reason why I asked the Court to have the recess now in order to give Dr. Froeschmann the opportunity.
THE PRESIDENT: Anyone else ready with documents?
We will take our regular recess until three o'clock.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until 1500.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. MAAS: (Attorney for the Defendant Hohberg): Your Honor, it has been pointed out to me during the recess that when I presented my documents, there was a mistake in the translation. I would like to clarify this mistake now. Here we were dealing with Document Hohberg No. 65 in the First Supplement to Document Book No. 2. This is Exhibit 64, and when the affidavit of Max Bodemer was mentioned I talked about a Kessler and I have been informed that the translation was Keppler Staff. In reality, it should be Kessler. The difference is very important, because actually by Keppler Circle is understood the circle of friends of Himmler and this leads to a misunderstanding.
THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit number, please?
DR. MAAS: It is Exhibit No. 64, - 64.
THE PRESIDENT: It was only a mistake in the translation. The document is all right?
DR. MAAS: Yes, the document is all right.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, Dr. Froeschmann, will you proceed?
DR. FROESCHMANN (for the defendant Mummenthey): I beg your pardon, Your Honor, I attended an interrogation before, and it took up more time than I expected. That is why the Tribunal had to wait for me.
Your Honor, I shall now begin to submit my documents in the case of Mummenthey. I want to present Document Number 1 in my Document Book I. It is an affidavit by Dora Wagner of the 18th of June 1947. This will become Exhibit Number 1. She signed it on that date and I certified it. In this document, I want to draw the attention of the Tribunal, in particular, to Paragraph 2 in which the witness points out the fact that shortly after she took up her duties she was struck by the fact that Mummenthey was very much limited in his work, compared to other undertakings. She also points out the special position which Schondorff occupied.
In Paragraph 3 the witness mentions the decentralization of the works, and the defendant Mummenthey has already mentioned that. In Paragraph 4 the witness refers to the fact that Mummenthey had to comply with Pohl's orders in all affairs. In Paragraph 8 the witness states that Mummenthey tried to gain an insight into the actual conditions under which the inmates lived and worked. However, in this he was only partially successful because of the organization of the concentration camps and the strict concentration camp regulations.
In Paragraph 9 the witness points out that she did not know anything of a directive of Mummenthey according to which prisoners were to be driven to work. In Paragraph 11 the witness points out the efforts of Mummenthey to make life easier for the inmates in general. In Paragraph 15 it is pointed out that Mummenthey always stressed the fact that only people who were really fit for work should be employed in the factories. She further points out that Mummenthey's attitude on behalf of the inmates brought him difficulties; and he himself was exposed to the danger of persecution.
Paragraph 16 deals with a fact which has become known in the meantime, that Mummenthey tried in numerous cases to have concentration camp inmates released. However, these attempts were unsuccessful; and many difficulties were occasioned Mummenthey, among other thing also by the RSHA, not, as it states in the English text, by the Main Race and Settlement Office but the Reich Main Security Office.
I have discovered that there are numerous mistakes in the translation in these documents in my document book; and I have addressed a communication to the Tribunal in which I shall point out the translation mistakes which are contained in Document Book I and the supplement to Document Book I.
Then with regard to this document, I want to draw the Court's attention to Paragraph 21 according to which Mummenthey ordered the chief of the legal department, Dr. Schneider, to compile a collection of all the regulations and axioms of the German legal administration concerning penal administration. On the basis of this compilation Mummenthey submitted a report with suggestions and proposals regarding the labor allocation of concentration camp inmates to the competent agency.
Conclusive in I paragraph 22 the witness states that during her activity in the DEST she came to know Mummenthey as a very reliable man of social consciousness who was warmhearted towards his subordinates, and helped everyone whom he could help.
As Exhibit number 2 I want to submit Document Number 2, the affidavit of Karl Kaiser. He was a stone mason, a foreman, and he has been mentioned several times during the previous presentation of evidence. This affidavit bears the date of 12 July 1947; and it was signed on that day by Karl Kaiser, and I certified to this affidavit. It is not necessary for me to read this affidavit in detail and to deal with it in detail.
It describes the big training center which Mummenthey established during his activity in the DEST; and it deals in detail with the measures which Kaiser carried out by order of Mummenthey.
In Paragraph 3 the affiant points out that Mummenthey encountered many great difficulties in his attempts to alleviate the condition of the inmates and that the inmates liked him very much and were very efficient in their training.
In Paragraph 8 the affiant points out that Mummenthey, since he persistently stuck to his goal, carried, out many things which alleviated the condition of the inmates in the stone-cutting plant at Oranienburg. Then he shows how the conditions of the inmates were improved in detail. I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of these statements.
As Exhibit Number 3 I want to offer Document Number 3 by Rudolf Ronge, who was a plant manager in various enterprises. In the affidavit of Rudolf Ronge there is first the date of the 28th of June 1947. It was signed on that date by the affiant Ronge and certified by me. In this affidavit I want to draw the attention of the Tribual to Paragraph 4, in particular in which the purpose of the DEST is explained. This has already been mentioned in the presentation of evidence before.
Then I want to draw the Tribunal's attention to Paragraph 5 where the fact is mentioned that the DEST tried to have a number of specially skilled workers for the stone cutting and its work through adequate training.
In Paragraph 6 an explanation is given about the granite works at Flossenburg, and it is stated in 7 here that the mechanization of the enterprise, which was carried out by Mummenthey, carried with it quite a simplification of the work.
In Paragraph 8 I should like to point out that the affiant states that he could state with a good conscience that the working conditions of the civilian workers from private industry were not as favorable as conditions in the granite works Flossenburg after its industrialization.
It is also pointed out here that it was the purpose of the DEST to obtain skilled workers and that it would not have been reasonable if the people who worked in the plant had been worked to death. The plant management and the defendant Mummenthey did not have the slightest intention of doing that.
In Paragraph 11 the witness confirms what the witness Bickel has already stated here in detail, namely, that the camp commandants had little understanding for the needs of the industries; that it acted in an arbitrary manner; and that constantly there were differences between the plant management and the concentration camp commander. Here, as far as the witness was concerned, the dispute became so severe that he had himself transferred away from Flossenburg.
In Paragraph 13 the individual working conditions are described in detail. This also shows the contrary of what the prosecution has said or the prosecution witnesses have testified to here in a very confused form. It states here that sick inmates were not employed and that the plant management did not want them to work and would have objected to their working because they might have infected the other workers.
In Paragraph 15 the witness describes the local situation of the granite works at Flossenburg as well as the situation of the camp of Flossenburg. He points out in this respect that through the extension of the camp the camp itself came into the possession of some stone quarries.
In Paragraph 16 the punitive company is mentioned, over whose composition and organization the plant managers of the DEST did not have any influence. The affiant states that the commandant's office used and organized this punitive company according to its disposition.
The affiant further points out that the plant managers did not have the least thing to do with the punitive company and that the civilian plant administration would, not have been able to interfere against the authority of the concentration camp commanders. It seems to me of importance particularly that the plant management never employed punitive companies in their works; and I want to emphasize the word "plant" here as well as the fact that the affiant had never seen nor heard of ill-treatment of prisoners doing their work in the plant.
In Paragraph 19 the affiant mentions the privileges which resulted from Mummenthey's efforts, for which the commandant's office showed very little understanding. He also emphasizes that in view of the industrialization of the enterprise no extremely hard work had to be performed any longer.
In Paragraph 21 the affiant points out that all the efforts of the plant management in order to obtain privileges for the inmates were always supported by the defendant Mummenthey with greatest understanding. In Paragraph 23 the fact is stated that Mummenthey strongly supported the idea of releasing prisoners from concentration camp confinement by permitting them to work as civilian workers; and he frequently mentioned his intention of keeping the inmates at some later time as civilian workers in the DEST.