THE INTERPRETER: "Subject, Operation of Enterprises.
To the Chairman of the Lebensborn, Registered Society, SS Obergruppenfuehrer Dr. Ebner. All enterprises which the Lebensborn Registered Society maintains outside of its homes, subordinated to the Economic and Administrative Main Office, effective the 1st of April 1940. Through this subordination the maintenance of these enterprises is transferred in full competency to the Economic and Administrative Main Office. The maintenance takes place without any reservation only for purposes of the Lebensborn, the Registered Society. The not income, therefore, should only be used on behalf of the Society. I request that all details be discussed and agreed upon with SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl in person. Heil Hitler, (signed) Heinrich Himmler." There is a file note on the left of the letter.
MR. ROBBINS: I am told that there was one mistake in reading. It should have read the WVHA Verwaltungs rather than WVHA. I might say to the Court that I don't care to discuss this problem any further with the witness; and I don't care for any comment from the witness on the document.
DR. SEIDL (for the defendant Oswald Pohl):
Your Honor, the prosecution has just read a document. However, it refrains from addressing any questions to the defendant. I consider it appropriate now that the document has already been accepted into the record and the defense has not as yet received a copy of it, that at least the defendant himself be given the possibility now of expressing his point of view with regard to this document. I cannot see what purpose it would serve to read this document into the record unless the defendant himself is given the possibility of expressing his views with regard to this document in the course of the cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: You can give the defendant that chance when the time comes after the prosecution finishes. You can then ask the witness to explain anything you wish.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness, do you have anything to add to your testimony about the duties of the defendant Hohberg?
A. No.
Q. I think you've omitted to tell us that the defendant Hohberg in 1942 was made the Economic Inspector with the Chief of the SS Economic and Administrative Main Office. Do you know anything about that?
A. He became Economic Inspector?
Q. Yes, in his office.
A. Oh, yes, but he was an auditor. That's something completely different. That was the capacity in which we employed him.
Q. I should like to ask you this. Was he ever made Economic Inspector with the Chief of the WVHA?
A. No, he was never economic Inspector. I don't even know this designation at all, that of Economic Inspector. I only know Hohberg as an economic auditor and examiner; but I cannot recall that he ever was an Economic Inspector.
Q. Perhaps I should give you the German word for it. The word is "Wirtschaftinspekteurs." You wish to state that there was never an office and never an organization under the WVHA known as the Economic Inspector with the Chief of the WVHA?
A. I cannot recall this designation at the moment. I cannot recall that we had an Economic Inspector, socalled Wirtschaft Inspector.
Q. I would like to show you Document NO-1954, which I will mark for identification as Exhibit 529, and ask you if this refreshes your recollection. Is there anything in the letter about the Economic Inspector? Do the court interpreters have a copy. I would like to read a part of this document to you. It is signed by you, addressed to Dr. Hohberg, Economic Auditor.
"Subject: Reorganization of the Economic Auditor's office on my staff.
The increasing number of economic enterprises in the SS WVHA, their size and their importance make it imperative that I be constantly informed and posted within the shortest possible periods of time about the economic procedures within the individual enterprises. Therefore, it is no longer sufficient for the office of the Economic Auditor directed by you, to devote most of its work to auditing annual balance sheets and checking annual business reports. These reports come in so late that they are of little value to me, or in most cases none at all. The things which are criticized in these reports occurred much too far back. Accordingly, any measures which I may have taken because of these reports are issued too late and in the meantime the state of affairs, has generally changed completely for better or worse. Therefore, the office of Economic Auditor will be changed as of 1 October 1942."
I point out that the office of Economic Auditor is the same one referred to in the first part of the paragraph as being directed by you and Dr. Hohberg, and later is addressed to Hohberg, Economic Auditor.
"From that time on it will be called:
The Economic Inspector with the Chief of the SS Economic and Administrative Main Office.
The duties of the Economic Inspector are:
1. The constant, almost daily, supervision of all economic enterprises, with the aim of regularly informing the Chief of the SS Economic and Administrative Main Office as quickly as possible about all proceedings within these enterprises, in every respect, that is, from the point of view of finance, organization and legality, etc."
Does this refresh your recollection?
A. Yes.
Q. By the way, I would like to read another paragraph here, it is on down the page, "The Economic Supervisors will appear in the plants without any advance notice. They have unrestricted access to all office, factory and store rooms at any time," and so on. It says here that the functions of the office will not be restricted to merely auditing. Does it not? It says there will be daily, constant, almost daily supervision of all economic enterprises by the Economic Administration. Do you know anything about that, or have you forgotten also you have you forgotten also you have signed this letter?
A. I now recall by virtue of this document that this term "Economic Inspector", which has determined itself as later being used in correspondence; and a daily use with the term is almost unknown to me, as it did not cause any change in the private activity of economic order. The whole letter here is nothing else but a change in the checking activity, which now is not only carried out in the Berlin office but by mobile examiners and auditors, who would examine the things whenever they would visit, taxation matters, and accounting, and that was the reason for this order. I hardly believe that there are many documents in existence which refer to the Economic Inspector, especially since the assignment was not changed at all.
Q. You say that his assignment was not changed at all and that it did not expand his function in auditing?
A. Yes.
Q. The second paragraph of the letter states, "Therefore, it is no longer sufficient for the office of the Economic Auditor directed by you to devote most of its work to auditing annual balance sheets-
and so forth. I don't want to discuss this document with you any further. We will go on to the next subject. Just a moment. Just a moment.
THE PRESIDENT: Your own counsel, witness, can ask you any further questions or permit you to make any explanations that you wish, later.
MR ROBBINS: That finishes the discussion on Hohberg for the time being, except I would point out to the Court that inspite of that fact that the witness has testified that Hohberg was not actually Chief of Staff-W. That document NO-2178, which is in Book 14, on page 135 of the English, a letter by Volk states that: "By order of Obergruppenfuehrer---" that refers to Pohl, "I have today taken over the duties of Dr. Hohberg as Chief of Staff-W." I will go on now and a ask you---before we leave Staff-W. It is true, isn't it, that Staff-W had supervision over the DWB?
A. Yes, taxation matters, legal matters and it had supervised inspections.
Q. It is also true, and will you refer to Exhibit No. 383, which I handed to you separately this morning. It is in Book 14. It is separate mimeographed documents.
A. OC 1039?
Q. Yes. It is also true that Staff-W supervised the second industry listed there, is it not, Public Utility Dwelling and Homestead Limited. Is that true? I did not get an answer?
A. Yes, it is also listed in Staff-W, but it had its own business manager.
Q. And also that Staff-W had supervision over the House and Real Estate Limited?
A. Well, I believe so. However, I cannot remember all details any more.
Q. You must have read NO-2178, which I just referred to, which is in Book 14, on page 135 of the English.
I think it is the last document in that book; from Volk, and it is to Building and Real estate Limited, and it states: that "By order of Obergruppenfuehrer I have today taken over the duties of Dr. Hohberg as Chief of Staff-W. Henceforth, the administration and all employees of The Building and Real Estate,G.m.b.H. and the Cooperative House and Home Building, GmbH., Dachau, belong wholly to Staff-W." That states the facts correctly, doesn't it?
A. Yes, if that's what it says, of course it's right.
Q. Staff-W also supervised the House and Real Estate Ltd. listed here, and the Satles Store of Berlin, furniture factory Ltd.?
A. Yes, it also belonged to Staff-W.
A. In Staff-W. I included all the firms which were not otherwise represented in the special fields, or the other offices.
Q. Yes, I understand. That is clear. That is sufficient. And also Eastern industries Ltd. also belonged to Staff-W, did it not?
A. Yes. You can not be expecte to accept it in such a way that it belonged to Staff-W Of course, it was subordinated to Staff-W.
Q. Isn't that the way you express it. That it belonged to Staff-W?
A. In a certain way I had to include them in Staff-W because they did not fit into any other office, after all-
Q. That is correct, I understand that. You also included Eastern Industries Ltd. in your chart which you looked at this morning, and said it was correct. That was included under Staff-W, wasn't it on the chart, do you recall that?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. Then I would like to go on to Office-W-1. The DEST was under Amtgruppe-1, was it not?
A. Amts-W-1.
Q. That was under the supervision of the defendant Mummenthey?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell us just what extensive powers that Mummenthey exercised over the German Earth and Stone Works? And I respectfully ask that you give us the complete story so that we won't have to get supplementary documents to fill out the picture.
A. Mummenthey, with Schondorf and Schwarz, was the commercial business manager of DEST. While Schondorf was the technical manager, Schwarz was the one who informed me of all commercial matters and reported to me about them in matters pertaining to the DEST. Schondorf was the manager who dealt with all the matters pertaining to the plants and their technical aspects.
Q. He was the manager of DEST?
A. DEST did not have a director. He was one of the managers.
Q. He was also a "Prokurist" of DEST?
A. No, he was the business manager. "Prokurist" is something else. It was not the same thing as a business manager. He was the business manager of DEST.
Q. That is good enough. However, Mummenthey says in his affidavit that he was "Prokurist" as well as business manager of DEST, but perhaps there again he didn't know what functions he was performing. It is true, isn't it, that the DEST employed concentration camp inmates?
A. Yes.
Q. It employed thousands of concentration camp inmates, didn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And used them in stone quarries, didn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. You know as a matter of fact that hundreds and hundreds of inmates died and were worked to death in the stone quarries, don't you?
A. No, I don't know that people were actually worked to death there. I have heard it but I did not see it from my own observations.
Q. When did you hear it?
A. I heard it here in the course of the trial through witnesses. Nothing was reported to me before that people were worked to death, and Mummenthey did not report anything about that to me.
Q. Do you suppose Mummenthey knew about it.
A. He certainly would have reported this fact to me, according to his character.
Q. This is the first time you heard about it here in Nuernberg, that is right, isn't it?
A. Yes. Nothing was known to me that people were being worked to death there because I would have intervened.
Q. You also know that Mummenthey did not know anything about it?
A. I can assume that. Otherwise he would have reported something about it to me.
Q. Whether people were worked, actually worked to death or not, you know today for a fact that hundreds of inmates died, hundreds of laborers who were working for DEST. In fact, thousands of them died. You know that, don't you, today?
A. I am not convinced that the prisoners in DEST died as a result of the work which they had to perform. If crimes have been committed there by the supervisors and the camp commanders who were not subject to my control, you cannot hold the managers responsible. In any case we took all the measures in order to make the work bearable in the plants of DEST. Proof of that is in the mechanization of the most modern kind that was introduced by us, and certainly they were not there to work people to death.
Q. Witness, you did not answer my question if, whether or not people were worked to death, it is a fact that hundreds and hundreds of inmates who were working for DEST either died or were killed. You know that from the proof in the case, don't you? You have seen the documents.
A. I have heard it here from the testimony of the witnesses.
Q. If it actually happened as the documents and testimony in the case show, can you give any conceivable explanation for the fact that Mummenthey should not have known about it as business manager of the DEST? It is true that the proof shows that he made inspections, repeated inspec tions of the DEST industries.
Do you have any idea why it was, if it is true, that Mummenthey did not know about this?
A. Mummenthey did not inspect the plants every day either. If he went there perhaps once a month, then there were twenty-eight or twentynine days when the other supervisors could do whatever they wanted to do without Mummenthey ever hearing about it.
Q. How often did he visit the plants?
A. I don't know how often Mummenthey went to inspect these plants.
Q. He gave you comprehensive reports on the conditions in the DEST industry, did he not?
A. Whenever he had something to report to me about the industries, then he did this on the occasion of our discussions orally, but it was not common to submit written reports on those matters.
Q. Do you wish to state here on the stand today that Mummenthey told you, either orally or in writing, that persons were dying in the DEST industry?
A. I don't think that he informed me of it. I can't recall. Of course, accidents may have happened. That happens in every plant but that he should have reported to me about constant mal conditions in the DEST plants that he also knew, that I can't recall. The DEST plants were exemplarily furnished, where such accidents did not exceed the number of the accidents which could happen in privately owned industries.
THE PRESIDENT: How many different locations were under the control of the DEST? How many stone quarries did they have?
THE WITNESS: Mauthausen, Flossenburg, Natzweiler.
Q. (By Mr. Robbins) Let me refresh your recollection. There was one at Auschwitz, wasn't there, a gravel and granite works?
A. There was no stone quarry at Auschwitz. That was a clay pit there, a gravel pit there.
Q. There was a gravel pit at Auschwitz under the DEST?
A. Yes.
Q. And also it had plants in Treblinka and Blessin. Treblinka is the place where--
A. The DEST did not have any plant at Treblinka. In any case I did not know anything about that.
Q. Well, I will show you a document in a moment to refresh your recollection, a document that was prepared and submitted to you, that says it did.
A. In Neuengamme, Bernstedt, and Oranienburg.
Q. It also had a granite work in Flossenburg and Gross-Rosen?
A. Yes, at Gross-Rosen. I named Mauthausen, Flossenburg, Natzweiler, and Gross-Rosen, that is correct.
Q. Did you name Neuengamme?
A. I named Neuengamme, yes, Bernstedt, and Oranienburg.
Q. Did you name Dambach-Goertschen? It would be simpler to get the entire list. If you would turn to Document Book XV--
THE PRESIDENT: Well, how many are there, Mr. Robbins? I didn't mean to lead into this, just approximately. A dozen?
MR. ROBBINS: There were plants at approximately a dozen different concentration camps. However, I understand that there were, I think, into the hundreds of actual plants or work locations.
THE PRESIDENT: That answers my question.
THE WITNESS: It is completely impossible that the DEST had one hundred plants or so.
Q. (By Mr. Robbins) Well, it had at least one hundred different work locations, did it not?
A. Completely out of the question. The brick plants had stone quarries, which we mentioned, but they did not have other working places at all.
Q. Well, Mummenthey submitted regular reports to you on the number of inmates who were working in these plants, didn't he?
A. If he submitted regular reports to me? That is to say, the reports were submitted to me in such a way that the business managers would come to see me from time to time. Whenever they consider it neces sary or otherwise, I had him called in order to make some inquiries.
However, the reports were not submitted regularly. Of course, then we would discuss everything that pertained to the plant.
Q. Well, there are documents in the document books which are reports by Mummenthey. I don't think I will take time to have you turn to them, but NO-541, which is Exhibit 435, Document Book 16, shows that as early as 1939, for instance in November 1945, that approximately five thousand inmates were employed. Can you give us some idea of the figures of the inmates who were employed under DEST in the latter part of the war, say '43 to '44?
A. I estimate that the DEST at the end, that is to say also in the armament of the DEST, and everything that was subordinate to the DEST, consisted of twenty to twenty-five thousand prisoners, twenty to twentyfive thousand. In the stone quarries, in the brick plants, and the armament industries of the DEST.
Q. The tunnels in the stone quarries were later turned over to the armament industries, were they not, and munitions and V weapons were produced in the tunnels of the DEST, the underground tunnels?
A. Well, these were almost exclusively for the production of aircraft. This was carried out in the tunnels which had been established for that purpose. Munitions, rifles, etc. were, I believe, produced in Gusen in halls, not in tunnels.
Q. We turn now to the defendant Volk, V-O-L-K. You have no doubt that he knew that concentration camp inmates were being employed on a large scale, do you?
A. He also knew that inmates of the concentration camps were being used.
Q. He worked on the so-called wage regulations for inmate labor, did he not? He handled some correspondence on that. You remember that from the documents, don't you?
A. Yes, that was the document that Baier was working on with Maurer. I don't know that Volk participated in that.
Q. Well, the document will speak for itself. He handled all of the legal affairs of the DWV, did he not?
A. Yes, he was the expert, the legal expert there, the notary, and he worked on the legal matters in the DWB.
Q. He was the managing director of the Home Building Society under Staff W, was he not?
A. We did not have a general director. He was perhaps the manager of this enterprise.
Q. That is what I said, he was the managing director, was he not?
A. No, he was the business manager. We only called him what he actually was. We didn't have any directors and general directors, and we did not have any business managing directors.
Q. He was the business manager?
A. I don't know how it is expressed in English, but we call it "Geschaeftsfuehrer" (business manager).
Q And he became referent for Housing, did he not, in your organization?
A Yes, he took care of the tasks of this company.
Q Well, we are on the industries under Staff W. Let me ask you: The DWB was a holding company which controlled all of the other industries, did it not?
A Yes.
Q And this -- who owned the shares of this industry?
A I have already described that, and explained it in my description about the legal matters.
Q Well, you explained it but I don't understand it. You told us that you were the trustee of the shares. Is that right?
A I was the trustee of the company. I have explained that the owner of the shares would not have been determined; that he, however, on the basis of the number of shares which the Reich owned in this company -- the Reich would consider it the owner. And that consequently the DWB would have been property owned by the Reich --
Q Excuse me, I asked you a very simple question. Who owned the shares of the DWB?
A The DWB was not a holding company but a G.m.b.H., a limited company. The capital of this limited company came primarily from the Reich, and as late as 1944 the Reich granted credit of 3,000,000 marks. Solely by virtue of that fact, do I consider the Reich as the owner of the DWB.
Q The shares were in your name, were they not? You told us the other day that you were the trustee. What is this trustee relationship?
A If I am a trustee, that does not mean that I am owner of the shares.
Q I understand that but just tell us, were the shares in your name?
A Yes. Naturally. After all, I was a partner in the company. It was established with my name.
Q And you told us that as far as the books and the legal records were concerned, that nothing appeared other than the fact that you were owner of the shares. You stated that you had made a trust deed to Himmler, is that correct? Or will I have to get your testimony and read it to you?
A I stated that from the trade journal it could not have been seen that I was not the personal owner of the shares, but that I was only the trustee.
Q That is what I mean.
AAnd that I, because I was nothing but the trustee, and since the owner was not stated, that I offered to Himmler the shares in case I should die so that he would be able to appoint a new trustee. That was the reason why I offered this to Himmler. Otherwise, upon my death, one could not have continued to operate this company.
Q So, if you made the deed to Himmler, was Himmler the trustor of the shares; was Himmler the equitable owner of the shares?
A No; he would have become trustee in my place and, by virtue of this position, he in turn could appoint another trustee, who would have been my successor.
Q It didn't appear on the business journal that the Reich owned the shares of the DWB, did it?
A No.
Q And did Himmler know that you had made this deed to him -- the fact that you had two copies of the deed? Did you know? You kept them in your safe (I have the location here somewhere). Himmler didn't know that you had made the deed, did he?
A He never even saw it. It was laid down in the partnership, and it was only to become effective in the case of my death; and he did not need to see any more. It was only a security that in the case of my death no legal complications would arise in the administration of this enterprise. From the moment I died he would have taken over the trusteeship.
Q But, as far as the outside world knew, and as far as anyone out side of your staff knew, apparently it is perfectly clear that you were the owner of the shares.
And no one else knew that anyone -either the Reich or Himmler -- had any equipable or legal ownership in the DWB. I would like to turn now to a discussion of the defendant Bobermin. He was chief of Amt W-2, was he not?
A Yes.
Q Tell us what he had to do with the seizure of brick plants in the East which were put under his supervision.
A He had nothing whatever to do with the seizure because the seizure of the brick works had already been carried out when Bobermin appeared in the picture. The seizure was carried out by the chief trusteeship agency for the East. And from this number of plants which had been seized a part of the brick works were turned over to the WVHA for operation and maintenance. The WVHA had to administer them in a trusteeship, and I was appointed trustee general for these enterprises.
Q Just a moment. Then the confiscated brick works were put under Bobermin's supervision, is that right? As chief of W-2?
A Bobermin was to take over the commercial administration and to develop it for these enterprises in Amt W-2. At the beginning it was Amt 3-A under Salpeter, in Berlin, and a short time later this agency was transferred to Posen.
Q Most of these brick works were put under the Ostdeutsche Ziegelwere, is that true? That is, the Eastern German Works for Building Material?
A The Eastern German Brick Works ... I think that was the name.
Q Yes. Now, the second industry on our basic document which, incidentally, was prepared by Hohberg, is the Golleschauer Portland Cement, Limited. How many concentration camp inmates did this industry employ?
A Well, when the civilian workers were withdrawn, I believe 500 to 1000 prisoners were employed there, but I cannot give you the exact number. There was a minimum of 500 and a maximum number of 1,000, according to my recollection.
Q And these were made available to Bobermin by Maurer, Amtsgruppe D, is that correct?
A Yes, I myself gave the order.
Q Where, in the East, did the Golleschauer company have plants?
A There was only one concrete work in Golleschauer. There were no other plants there.
Q They only had one plant?
A One plant only, yes.
Q And do you know from what concentration camp the inmates were sent?
A They came from Auschwitz.
Q They came from the Auschwitz concentration camp?
A Yes.
MR. ROBBINS: Would this be a convenient time for the Tribunal to recess?
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess at this time.
THE MARSHAL: This Tribunal is in recess until 1345 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing convened at 1345 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal No. 2 is again in session.
OSWALD POHL - Resumed CROSS-EXAMINATION - Continued BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, do you know when the Defendant Bobermin joined the SS?
A I believe he was called up in '40 or '41.
Q Will you repeat that, please?
A '40 or '41.
Q Do you know whether he joined the SS voluntarily?
A That I can no longer recall, but since it was during the war, he was probably called up.
Q When did you first meet Bobermin?
A That was in '40 or '41. I think '40. Yes, yes... It was in 1940 because in 1939 the brick works were constructed. It was 1940.
Q And what position did he have under you at that time?
AAt that time he was in charge of Amt Salpeter. That was the stone masonery works.
Q I would like to go back and ask you about Mummenthey. When did you first meet Mummenthey?
A I think that was also in 1940 or '41 but I am not absolutely certain.
Q And what position under you did Mummenthey hold when he first joined the WVHA, or the administrative organizations?
A Mummenthey too was working in the Economic enterprises.
Q Did he hold - was he chief of any office?
AAt that time, no.
Q Do you know whether he joined the SS voluntarily?
A No, I don't know that either.
Q Will you tell us when you first met the Defendant Volk?
A That too happened in '40 or '41.
Q And what position did he have at that time?
A Volk too was in the Salpeter Department of the business firms Economic Department.
Q Do you know whether he joined the SS voluntarily?
A No, no. I don't.
Q While we are still discussing Amt 2, or, rather, Amt W-2 and Amt W-1
A I didn't understand your question.
Q While we are still discussing Amts W-1 and W-2, I should like to ask you if it isn't a fact that when prisoners were working on important work locations and the RSHA expressed a desire to have the inmate released, that it was still within the power of the WVHA to prevent the release?
A No, the WVHA couldn't prevent sacking. If the RSHA wanted releases, wanted sacking they had to be sacked.
Q What is the word?
A If the RSHA ordered somebody was to be sacked, he had to be sacked.
Q It is true that the RSHA was the organization which ordered the release, but isn't it also true that the RSHA followed the recommendations on the chiefs of Amtsgruppe W as to when the inmate should be released?
A Releases from camps took place either on principle only on order from RSHA and the WVHA could just speak in favor of somebody being discharged. In other words, they could speak in favor of such a release, promote it, if you like, but they could neither prevent it nor could they order it on their own initiative.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Robbins, I am advised that there is a very serious interference on Channel No. 1, which makes it almost impossible for the interpreter to hear the verbatim statements over the noise of this roaring on the line. The interpreters have requested that we recess until it can be checked, and remedied if possible.
MR. ROBBINS: Will we convene again this afternoon, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, stand by until we see how serious this inter ference is.
