Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Goebel first of all states that Herr Dr. Bobermin did not suggest the employment of concentration camp inmates; that he did not even order it, but that Dr. Bobermin had asked that the plant cease operations. Thereupon, Herr Pohl refused to have the factories cease operations and ordered the employment of concentration camp inmates. Works Manager Goebel furthermore states that labor camp in Golleschau was under the sole administration and responsibility of the concentration camp of Auschwitz; that neither any of the members of the plant nor the Works Manager Goebel himself had the right to visit the camp without being accompanied by the camp commander. The camp commandantur and the guard personnel had been assigned by the concentration camp of Auschwitz, and the administration of the plant and the members of the administration of the plant did not have any right to give or issue any orders to the guard personnel or the camp administration.
Goebel makes a few more statements concerning the conditions under which the inmates worked in Golleschau. They worked along with German free workers; and the most difficult work was carried out by the free workers because these people had to be skilled personnel, as Goebel states in detail. Then it was also stated that the inmates in Golleschau were in no way abused. The Works Manager Goebel gives a reason for that and proves it by citing the production figures. From eight to nine hundred inmates and from 250 to 300 free workers produced approximately the same as at the time when only 350 to 400 free workers worked before.
Goebel makes a few more statements, he says that only CC commanders were responsible for the food and the feeding of the inmates alone. He then states that while the inmates were being employed in the plant, they were never mistreated nor killed. He says that Dr. Bobermin visited the plant only two or three times during the period of time during which inmates were being employed there. He furthermore states that he, the works manager, at no time gave or sent reports to Herr Court No. II, Case No. 4.Dr. Bobermin that inmates were mistreated or were killed.
He couldn't do that for the very simple reason that such acts were not committed in Golleschau.
As Exhibit Number 13 I would like to introduce Document Bobermin Number 3, which is in Document Book Number I.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE PHILLIPS): I thought Bobermin Exhibit Number 12 was Document Number 12 and that the Exhibit Number 19 was Exhibit Number 13.
DR. GAWLIK: No, your Honor, Exhibit Number 12 is Document Bobermin Number 19, the affidavit by Richard Goebel.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE PHILLIPS): What is the exhibit number for Document Number 12?
DR. GAWLIK: Document Number 12 was not introduced as yet.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE PHILLIPS): I beg your pardon.
DR. GAWLIK: I shall now proceed to Exhibit Number 13, which will become Document Bobermin Number 3, in Document Book Number 19, on Pages 6 to 8. That is the affidavit by Paul Dorn, dated the 2nd of July 1947. I would appreciate it if great attention be paid to this statement because this is a statement given by a former inmate of the concentration camp of Auschwitz. That inmate made statements about the conditions at Golleschau. He stated: "I know almost all the plants where inmates of the protective custody camp Auschwitz were working (6 - 8). The cement plant at Golleschau as compared with other plants was considered to be one of the good plants among the inmates of the concentration camp at Auschwitz." Further, he stated that he never saw anything bad about the living and working conditions of the inmates at the cement factory in Golleschau, nor did he hear about anything of the sort. Then he stated that the plant at Golleschau did everything in its power to better the living and working conditions of the inmates employed there. This is the statement by a former inmate who was at Buchenwald before. That is the reason why he has a very Court No. II, Case No. 4.good knowledge of the conditions of the concentration camps and why he is in a position to give a good description of the conditions at the plant of Golleschau.
As Exhibit Number 14 I should like to introduce Document Bobermin Number 2. This is an affidavit by Willy Burger. I want to prove by that Office W/II at no time had a delegate in a concentration camp and that Dr. Bobermin did not cooperate with Amtsgruppe D. The following documents will refer to the Hungarian question and to the activity of Dr. Bobermin in Hungary.
As Exhibit Number 15 I should like to introduce Document Bobermin Number 24, which is an excerpt, your Honor. I don't believe you have this document, your Honor. It's nothing but an excerpt from one of the records of a session of the International Military Tribunal on 3 January 1946; and the translation was not granted me. It was refused, the statement being made to me that the records are never translated. However, I considered this record very important. It is testimony given by Vita Wislizeni to prove that Dr. Bobermin did not participate in the measures against the Jews in any way. In that record Wislizeni made very clear statements as to who had carried out those measures against the Jews in Hungary. At the time he stated that a certain man by the name of Eichmann committed those things. He said that Eichmann, the man in charge of Department IV/A/4 of the Reich Security Main Office, RSHA, Office IV, was the Gestapo.
He also states, and I shall quote: "This sub-department comprised two referate, the matters of the church and the special office for Jewish affairs. That department had to deal with Jewish affairs, then Wislizeni makes correct statements about Hungary. He says that after the German troops marched in to Hungary, Eichman personally, together with a great contingent, went to Hungary. The first measures which Eichmann started in cooperation with Hungarian officials were the concentration of Jews in Hungary in certain places. Under duress at the Court No. II, Case No. 4.beginning they were sent to the Carpatho-Russia, in Siebenbuergen.
He states furthermore that from this situation Eichmann made the following proposal to the Hungarians--that those Jews be sent to Auschwitz and other camps. He wanted to have a special request from the Hungarian government and national courts. That decree was given by Minister Von Becker, and the Hungarian police carried out this evacuation. Those measures are discussed in detail by Wislizeni. Early in the month of March 1944 the so-called Einsatzgruppe of the Security Police and the Security Service was organized in Mauthausen and Linz. Eichmann himself had a Sondereinsatzkommando, a special task commando.
I shall quote further: "Eichmann's activities in Hungary dealt with all the matters in connection with the Jewish question. Eichmann also reported directly to Berlin, either to Gruppenfuehrer Mueller or, in important cases, to the Chief of the Security Police Kaltenbrunner." Then Wislizeni stated that he was asked the following question, first of all.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO): Dr. Gawlik, how much do you intend to quote from this? It seems to me you are giving us considerable quotation from the record of the IMT. Can't you just refer us to that?
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I shall try to do so. I have only one more thing to point out.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO): If it is something brief, that's all right; but I thought it might be many more pages.
DR. GAWLIK: Then Wislizeni stated the following, that all those measures against the Jews in Hungary, and particularly the transportation and evacuation to Hungary, were carried out by this one Eichmann, who was under Mueller's orders. Eichmann had these measures carried out by this Sondereinsatzkommando near Mauthausen. This document therefore shows quite clearly that Bobermin did not participate in those matters in any way.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
As Exhibit Number 16 I should like to introduce Document Bobermin Number 15. It is an affidavit by one Ernst Kienast, dated the 20th of August 1947, Page 37 of the supplement. It also refers to Dr. Bobermin's activity in Hungary. This affidavit shows quite clearly that Herr Dr. Bobermin had nothing to do with the deportation of Jews; that these deportations of Jews were carried out by the Sonderkommando, Einsatzkommander Eichmann, under the command of the Security Police in Hungary, in cooperation with the Hungarian government and the Hungarian police. It also shows that no concentration or labor camps existed under German sponsorship in Hungary and that this was not part of the task of Herr Dr. Bobermin as an SS economist.
As Exhibit Number 17 I should like to introduce now Document Bobermin Number 4, which is an affidavit by one Kurt Becher, dated the 27 of June 1947, contained on pages 9 to 13 in Document Book I. This affidavit also refers to Herr Dr. Bobermin's activity in his capacity as an SS economist in Hungary. Becher gives very exact testimony here; and I should like to prove by this in particular that the tasks and activities of Dr. Bobermin were simply limited to providing the police and SS units with food, PX items, and clothing. Bobermin's activity was similar to that of a supply officer of an army.
Then I should furthermore like to prove by this that Herr Dr. Bobermin was not in charge of any labor or concentration camps in Hungary. This is on Page 12 of the document book. Bobermin had nothing to do with those questions, neither with the camps nor with the carrying out of the deportation of the Jews.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
I should like to introduce as Exhibit Number 18 Document Bobermin Number 12. I want to prove by that that for the protective custody measures the Gestapo was competent only for the entire Reich area and that, effective the 11th of March 1934; so that the SS had nothing to do with issuing a protective custody order, and it was not competent for that matter.
As Exhibit Number 19 I'd now like to introduce Document Bobermin Number 5. As Exhibit Number 20 I'd like to introduce Document Bobermin Number 6. Document Bobermin Number 5 is an affidavit by the former Reich Minister Dr. Hans Heinrich Lammers, dated the 20th of May 1947; and Document Bobermin Number 6 is an affidavit by Herbert Klemm, the former State Secretary, dated the 20th of June 1947. I should like to prove with these two documents, as can be seen from the documents themselves, that Herr Dr. Bobermin joined neither Party nor SS voluntarily but only because of an order issued him by the Higher authorities of the Reich in 1933 and because he was at the time under duress.
The following documents refer to Dr. Bobermin's good name and good character. It is stated there that nobody could possibly expect him to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity; that his attitude was not an SS attitude as charged by the prosecution. Exhibit Number 21, which will be Bobermin Document Number 16, is an affidavit by one Gustav Schneevoigt, dated the 22nd of July 1947. This man today has a very high official position in Berlin and knows Dr. Bobermin personally and knows his political attitude as well. Exhibit Number 22 will be Bobermin Document Number 20, an affidavit by Emil Plonszen, dated 24 July 1947. This also concerns Dr. Bobermin's political attitude. It is stated there that Herr Dr. Bobermin's activity while he was a member of the Main Office Administration of the WHA was nothing but that of an economist and that he in no way carried out any political functions during his activity there.
Exhibit Number 23 is Document Bobermin Number 21, an affidavit by a Jewess by the name of Erna Doerry, dated 7 July 1947, who has Court No. II, Case No. 4.known Bobermin since 1910.
That is the reason why she is in a good position to give a very clear description of his political attitude even after 1939. Exhibit Number 24 will become Bobermin Number 23. This is an affidavit by Louis Wolf, dated 24 July 1947. It also concerns Dr. Bobermin's character and his personal attitude.
I have thus finished my introduction into evidence of documents in connection with the case of Dr. Bobermin. I shall now introduce documents in the case of Dr. Volk. First I'd like to state that Document Book Number II for Dr. Volk, which is not here as yet, was turned in towards the middle of August to the translation department, in other words, three or four weeks ago. I have already introduced three exhibits for Dr. Volk. Again I have my documents here in the exact order in which the events took place.
First of all I should like to introduce as Exhibit Number 4 Document Dr. Volk Number 41, a supplement. This is an individual sheet of paper, an affidavit by Dr. Gerhard Hoffmann, dated 23 August 1947. I don't know whether the Tribunal has that translation. I don't have the English translation myself. Then I should appreciate it if the Tribunal would give me permission to read this in detail or at least speak about it in detail.
THE PRESIDENT: How long is it?
DR. GAWLIK: Eight pages, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: When did you give that in for translation?
DR. GAWLIK: It was written on 23 August and immediately turned over to the translation department. I can't recall the exact date; but I know it was a few days after that, if not immediately after that.
THE PRESIDENT: Nearly a month ago?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, indeed, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Why don't you see if you can get the translation and deliver it to the Tribunal without reading it now? You can do that Court No. II, Case No. 4.at any time within the next week.
Give us a translation of it later.
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, your Honor. Last week I or at least my assistant or my secretary went to see Capt. Rice almost every day. Capt. Rice is the officer in charge of the place, our liaison officer. I have no right to go down to the translation department myself. Capt. Rice told me that up to yesterday all the translations would be here and that he could not do anything else.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, instead of reading it now--it's so long-let's see if we can't get the translation through Capt. Rice, and you can turn it in to the Tribunal any time on within the next week; and then we'll read it in English.
DR. GAWLIK: Very well, your Honor. Gerhard Hoffmann, together with Dr. Volk, worked in the legal department there. His testimony first gives us the fact that Dr. Volk is the man in charge of the legal department of Staff W and only dealt with legal matters. He gives examples, stating that inmate matters were not dealt with there and that the equalization treasury was not under the legal department.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you reading from the affidavit now?
DR. GAWLIK: No, your Honor, I am simply giving you an over-all picture of the contents of the individual subjects of proof. In two sentences I've taken care of the probative value of the first page.
THE PRESIDENT: But it won't help much because we've got to read it when we get the English translation anyway. We have nothing to make any notes on so we can't remember what you are saying. Let it go until we get the English; and then we'll read it. Then we'll have it word for word.
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, your Honor. I thought it would help the Tribunal if at least we had in the record the subjects which I am trying to prove so that when the Tribunal reads the record it can understand what the subjects I am trying to prove are so that the Tribunal will know exactly what I am trying to prove.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: But we won't read the record; we'll read the affidavit. We'll read the whole affidavit.
Then probably the fact is I don't know whether the Tribunal knows what I am trying to prove in my affidavit, but I am quite sure it will help the Tribunal to understand this affidavit, then the Tribunal can tell from the record just what I am trying to prove.
THE PRESIDENT: We thought that you would tell us that in your argument?
DR. GAWLIK: Well, of course, I can not very well state individual subjects, which I am trying to prove here in an argument; I can not very well bring that up; after all I can only use forty-five minutes in my argument. I am restricted, and I don't believe I can be through in an hour and a half.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought, probably, you would be through now if I had not interrupted you, so go ahead.
DR. GAWLIK: As the next exhibit, I would like to introduce Document Volk's No. 440. This is Exhibit No. 5. The Tribunal probably does not have the translation of this document, either. May it please Your Honors, would it be more suitable if my colleague Dr. Foreschmann, should introduce his document first, and at noon I'll try to see De. Rice and see whether the second document book is available.
THE PRESIDENT: That is a very good idea, and agreeable to us. Dr. Foreschmann.
DR. FORESCHMANN: Dr. Foreschmann of the defendant Mummenthey. Your Honors, this is Document Book No. 4 Supplement numbers 2 and 3
JUDGE PHILLIPS: I have here, Dr. Foreschmann, document book No. 4, Supplement I, and Supplement 2, Now do you have another?
DR. FORESCHMANN: Your Honor, I already introduced the two documents the last time concerning the Krysiak case.
The Krysiak case I treated here in Supplement No. 3. This is Supplement No. 3 which contains excerpts from the preceeding, and I believe that the Tribunal's already has that. This was confirmed to me by the translation department that it was translated. I shall not introduce anything further from this Supplement No. 3, because I have already given a detailed description. I simply want to point the Tribunal's attention to page 3 of Supplement No. 3.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Supplement 1 and 2.
DR. FORESCHMANN: Supplement No. 1 has already been introduced.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: That has been introduced.
DR. FORESCHMANN: From document book No. 4 I would like to introduce now as Exhibit No. 50 Document No. 50. This is the affidavit of Rudolf Dippe, dated 12 August 1947. It refers to the conditions in the porcelaine department or plant at Allach. From the contents under paragraphs 6 to 12 here again I would like to refer to paragraph 12 where Dippe's description of Mummenthey so far as his activities in the DEST were concerned is described therein.
As Exhibit No. 51 I would like to introduce Document No. 51, which is an affidavit of Erich Ruppercht, dated 27 August 1947, and describes in detail the conditions in Auschwity. It clarifies all those matter which were dealt with here in the Trial concerning Treplinka and Auschwitz, and which has not been cleared up in the trial, and it also point out that no inmates whatsoever were employed in the illfamed police prison of Treplinka. In paragraph 11 the witness states that he learned to appreciate Mummenthey very much because of his social attitude towards his comrades, and he states verbatim what I can say is if any one dealt with social matters of the employees, and particularly that of the inmates, it was Mummenthey; that the charge made against him concerning the abuse of inmates is not correct.
As Exhibit No. 52 I would like to introduce document No. 52, which is an affidavit of Otto Walter, dated 15 August 1947, and it is contain ed on pages 21 to 24, which rebuts the document introduced by the prosecution by Sauer where the conditions at Mauthausen were described, a description which His Honor corrected right here on the witness dock, where Walter corrects all the mistakes contained in that affidavit by Sauer's document.
As the following exhibit I would like to introduce Document No. 53, which will become Exhibit No. 53, by one Freiderich Kessler, dated 13 August 1947. It also described the conditions at Mauthausen in detail. It stresses the point of Mummenthey that although the plant was under "B", Mummenthey tried to interfere for and help the inmates, and that on hearing of complaints, about the hygienic conditions and the epidemic, he sent Schwartz, and Zater Brauner ther immediately, and he investigated and corrected matters immediately.
As Exhibit No. 54 I would like to introduce now Document No. 54, which is an affidavit of Gerhard Maurer, who was mentioned here several times. I would like to refer to that in order to simplify matters. However, he refers to document NO-2162, Exhibit 298, which is an affidavit or statement given by Phillip Gremm, wherein Grimm has described the death rate in detail.
As Exhibit No. 55 I would like to introduce Document No. 55, which is an affidavit of one Rudolf Poelter, dates 21 August 1947. Poelter is dealing with the financial position of the DEST, and in paragraph 7 points out that the DEST had nothing to do with the OSTI, and he also points out the enormous social accomplishments of the DEST for the inmates, which is shown in the balances of the DEST. He also shos that Mummenthey did have all those characteristics trait as they were mentioned sofar, namely, that he helped the inmates. How on the same level we have here Exhibit No. 56 which will become Document 56, which is an affidavit of noe Henrich Otto Paul Caspritz, dates 20 August 1947, and which refers to Neuengamme, and I would like to point the Tribunal's attention in particular to paragraph 9, where he also states that Mummen they did bring in his power in order to increase the working power of the inmates by giving them additional food, many privileges, and tobacco.
As Exhibit No. 57 I have Document No. 57, an affidavit by one Walter Haenle, dates 21 August 1947. This affidavit explains how the DEST installed the latest models of machines in the DEST plants.
As Exhibit No. 58 I would like to introduce now Document No 58. This is a certificate of Tiede, of Saint Ulrich, Ecangelical Rectory, dated 20 November 1946. I say this is an additional one because I used another one prior to that, and I would like to refer to this, as the certificate shows that Mummenthey did not agree to withdraw from the church and other certain things which were against his idealogy.
Now you have a series of affidavits given by prisoners and inmates. Those are documents Nos. 59 to 64. As Exhibit No. 59 I would like to introduce first document No. 59 which is an additional affidavit of Herbert Engler, who was examined here on the witness stand. Here he has pointed out that He, Engler, owes his life to him, Mummenthey. At the time I could not ask all of those questions, Your Honor, because, Your Honor, Engler was examined during the period of time during which the defendant was in no position to discuss the witness testimony with him, or with the client.
As Exhibit No. 60, I would like to introduce now an affidavit of one Otto Roeske, dates 17 July 1947, this containa pages 51 to 53. Otto Roeske was one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and he has stated quite clearly and touchingly how Mummenthey took care of inmates and of him personally.
As Exhibit No. 61 I would like to introduce Document No. 61, which is an affidavit of one Josef Juskowiak, dates 22 November 1946, and he was one of Jehovah's Witnesses, also agrees with Volk's testimony, and he confirms it.
As Exhibit No. 62 I would like to introduce Document No. 62, which is an affidavit of one Josef Giesen, dates 1 November 1946, on page 65.
He is also one of Jehovah's Witness, and he is confirmed whatever was said by the man before.
As Exhibit No. 63 I would like to introduce document No. 63, which is another of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is Willy Harlass, and he also confirms the testimony submitted by the witnesses sofar.
Q. Now as No. 64, I would like to introduce document No. 64, which is an affidavit by one Emil Heinz, dated 13 January 1947, and I would appreciate if the Tribunal would take judicial notice of it. I would not like to introduce No. 65 because it was introduced by my other colleague, and the last few documents of mine, being Exhibit No. 65 of Supplement No. 2, and Document No. 66 which is Exhibit No. 65, by one Freidrich Wilhelm Seiler-Vierling, dated the 29 August 1947, and he is dealing with the camp of Mauthausen, and he also confirms how Mummenthey helped him along when he also had trouble as an inmate, and he also saved his life.
Exhibit No.66 I would like to introduce which is Document No.67, an affidavit by one of the inmates, F.K. Setina, dated 26 August 1947, which in the first place deals with conditions which prevailed in Neuengamme during the construction of the Oder-Elbe Canal. He again stresses the knowledge as to Mummenthey supplying inmates with food and everything else.
As the last exhibit, which is Exhibit No. 68, we have document No.69 which is a decree of the State Secretary of Interior, dated 1 April 1943-excuse me, it is just pointed out to me that I am mistaken on the exhibit which is Exhibit No. 67, which I would like to introduce as Document No. 68 - - pardon me a minute. This other affidavit is one Josef Steunz dated 29 August 1947, and the last document we have, Exhibit No. 68, Document No. 69, which I just stated is a decree of the Secretary of the Interior, dated 1 April, 1943, and now in Supplement No. 2 -- correction, Supplement No. 3. I have excerpts from the procedure, Your Honor -"our Honor - - I would appreciate if you will take judicial notice of it. I would like to point out that on page 4 is an interesting passage, and I am quite sure, pages 4, 11 and 21, wherein page 4 describes the testimony, and page 11 concerns the Krysiak case, where in 1944 the the doctor who treated him gave a prognosis, namely, that Krysiak would go back to came, because he was a professional criminal, and page 43 contains the sentence which the Tribunal will admit shows quite clearly the conditions there in such a way that it will be nothing but a good sign of those special courts which are illfamed.
That will conclude my introduction of exhibits or evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: What about Supplement No. 1, Dr. Foreschmann, the two affidavits? The affidavit of one Otto Geotius and Alfred Gross. Have they been given exhibit numbers?
DR. FROESCHMANN: They have already been introduced, yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Documents Nos. 48 and 49?
DR. FORESCHMANN: Nos. 48 and 49 are the exhibit numbers for the trial proceedings of Krysiak. Documents Nos. 48 and 49 were already introduced as Exhibits Nos. 15 and 16.
THE PRESIDENT: Nos. 15 and 16.
DR FROESCHMANN: Yes, Your Honor, Nos. 15 and 16. That is quite correct.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Is that all?
DR FROESCHMANN: I have finished my introduction of evidence now.
(Discussion ensued about Tschentscher's Book II) Any one else ready to present document books? Have you anything for Tschentscher? Tschentscher is completed.
DR SEIDL: Your Honor, as far as I can see everything except I think my colleague who has only a few documents to introduce which have not been translated as yet, is completed, but at the present time he has inquired about the translation of those documents. Sofar as I know the other defense counsel have no further documents to introduce.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. The Tribunal will recess until quarter to two.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until 1345.
(Recess until 1345, 16 September 1947)
AFTERNOON SESSION.
(The hearing reconvened at 1350 hours, September 16, 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. GAWLIK: If the Tribunal please, I saw Captain Rice in the noon recess, and I was informed that my supplementary document book for Dr. Volk and the supplements will be ready only in the course of this afternoon. I have found out that these documents were submitted to the Translation Department on 27 August.
THE. PRESIDENT: We have one document book, Dr. Gawlik, Documents 1 to 29.
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, that is the first document book.
THE PRESIDENT: You haven't introduced that, have you? You haven't introduced that.
DR. GAWLIK: I am about to introduce that, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. How many documents are in the next book, the one that isn't ready yet?
DR. GAWLIK: Them will be nine documents in the next document book, and then there is a further supplement, a document by Gerhardt Hoffmann, which has not yet been translated. It is a single document, the supplement, and it will be completed by this afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: That means there are ten more documents which we have not received yet.
DR. GAWLIK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You go ahead and give us just the substance, just a short resume of those ten documents after you finish this book, and then you can give us the translation any time before the end of the week.
DR. GAWLIK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And that will complete your documents. All right, start there with this one then.
DR. GAWLIK: Yes. Volk Exhibit No. 2 I submit Document Volk No. 5.
I beg your pardon, Exhibit No. 5 will be Document No. 2. 1 to 4 have already offered. This is an affidavit by Josef Opperbeck of 20 June 1947 On Page 3 of the document Book Opperbeck first makes statements about what Volk did in the Main Department III-A/4, namely that there he was merely in charge of the internal office. He also says that he never worked for DEST, but Volk as the man in charge of the legal department with Staff W and as the prokurist of the DWB did not include settling of legal matters for DEST or DAW. They had their own legal departments. Further, Opperbeck makes statements about what Volk did as the personal assistant of Pohl, namely that in that position he merely looked after the purely personal matters of Pohl and his family, and that what he did was really the work of a private secretary. He also makes statements about what Volk did as the business manager of the dwelling establishments, G.m.b.H. and that in particular that in 1943 and he had to be in charge of the evacuation of bombed-out members of these enterprises which claimed much of his time and energies. He did not have to purchase any estates. The company had a civilian employee for that purpose.
I then offer Document No. 7 which will be Exhibit Volk No. 7
THE PRESIDENT: No. 6.
DR. GAWLIK: I beg your pardon, Exhibit No. 6. This is an affidavit by Hermann Pister of 27 June 1947. It is on Page 15 and 16. This has reference to the affidavit submitted by the Prosecution of Pister's namely, Document NO-2327, Exhibit 75. That affidavit, in other words, is a supplement and addition to the affidavit submitted by the Prosecution. Here he states that the commandant's meeting consisted of two parts, the social evening and the actual conference, and that Dr. Volk did not take part in the actual meeting of the commandants. His statements only refer to the social occasions which were hold on the occasion of the commandant's meeting.
He also corrected his statement made in his affidavit submitted by the prosecution in as much as he contends that Dr. Volk never set foot in the area of his concentration camp. By that he means in his affidavit, submitted to the prosecution, only that he met Volk outside the Protective Custody Camp, because he needed to take care for a trip to Erfurt. He emphasizes that as soon as he was commandant at Buchenwald until the end, "I don't recall that Volk ever entered the Protective Custody Camp."
I then submit Document Volk's No. 5, which will be exhibit No. 7. This is an affidavit by Will Burger, of 3 July 1947, on pages 11 and 12 of the Document Book. This affidavit also refers to the prosecution's document to which I referred. He states that Volk did not take part in a commandant's meeting, or of a conversation so held. That only the commandants of the concentration camps were present, of office group chiefs, office chiefs of D, and the Pain Office chiefs. Burger also mentioned that apart from the actual conferences, there was this dinner. There other people took part as well.
I then offer Document No. 3, which will be Exhibit No. 8. This is an affidavit by Gerhard Maurer, dated 3 July 1947, on page 6 of the document book. Maurer was since the establishment of the WVHA, Chief of D-II. His statement also refers to the prosecution's document which I have had reference to before, Maurer also states that the conferences of the commandants consisted of two parts: The actual official conversations, and the social parts. He also said that Dr. Volk did not take part in conferences of camp commandants. Then he makes statements about the fact that Dr. Volk had nothing to do with the DEST. It was not part of his task to purchase real estate for the concentration camps. When I had orders to buy land for the concentration camp of Stuffhoff, that land came only by purchase by the Reich. He never made any request of Maurer to receive inmates as workers.
Then I offer Volk's Document No. 4, which will be Exhibit No. 9.
This is an affidavit by Hellmut Kiener, 3 July 1947, on page 9 of the document book. This affidavit has reference to purchase of land for the concentration camp. It is attempting to prove that Volk had nothing to do with this. Kiener states that for the purchase of the land for the concentration camps, the Reich was solely competent.
I then offer Document No. 6, which will be Exhibit No. 10. An affidavit by Bottfried Buchartz of 8 July 1947, on pages 13 and 14 of the Document Book. That affidavit refers to Dr. Volk's trip to Litzmannstadt, and it makes it clear that Dr. Volk protested against the change of the ghetto at Litzmannstadt into a concentration camp, and that he voiced his protest towards Baier.
I then offer Document 23 as my Exhibit No. 11. Document 24 will become Exhibit No. 12. Document No. 25 will be Exhibit No. 13; Document No. 26 will be Exhibit No. 14; Document No. 27 will be Exhibit No. 15; Document No. 28 will be Exhibit No. 16; Document No. 29 will be exhibit No. 17. These documents are extracts from the Reich Legal Gazette. In the case of No. 23, is the second executive ordinance concerning the assignment of Jewish property. Document No. 24 refers to the activity of Dr. Volk with the dwelling establishments, GmbH, Otherwise I shall take reference to these exhibits in my final plea.
I now offer Document No. 8, which will be Exhibit No. 18, and, Document No. 9, which will be Exhibit No. 19. Document No.8 is an affidavit by Dr. Hans Heinrich Lammers, and Document No. 9 an affidavit by Herbert Klemm. Klemm was at the end the Secretary of State in the Reich Ministry of Justice. By the last two documents I wish to prove that Dr. Volk in 1933 did not join the Party or SS while in Berlin, but by compulsion coming from higher agency, particularly from the Justice Administration, which was exercised on young legal experts, and I wish to say, at that time Dr. Volk had not as yet completed his training as a lawyer.
The next document will be Document No. 12, which will become Ex hibit No. 20.