A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. It is dated approximately--it is dated on 14th September 1940.
A. 23--no; 14th, yes, that is quite right.
Q. Did you sign a letter on this subject at approximately the same date--to the best of your recollection and belief?
A. Well, Prosecution Counsel, after all, it is now seven years ago; and it is quite impossible--probably at that time I signed twenty to thirty letters a day; it is quite impossible for me to say.
THE PRESIDENT: Don't argue with the Prosecutor. Do you remember signing this order--this letter?
A. I can't remember that today.
Q. Now, I will ask you whether or not the subject of a representative of your office to be placed in each concentration camp had not been discussed as a problem which had to be met; and this order established a representative of your office in each concentration camp for the purpose of allocation of prisoner labor. Do you remember a prison allocation officer being placed by your department in each concentration camp?
A. Yes, it is correct, but I never denied that. The Main Department I/5, as can be seen from the proceedings, had a representative for labor allocation of inmates in every camp, and this letter here only regulates the economic coordination under these agencies in the camps.
Q. This prison allocation officer was still under the control of your department in Budget and Constructions, was he not?
A. Yes, it was under the Main Department I/5, and, therefore, under the Main Department Budget and Buildings.
Q. The Prosecution at this time offers for identification Document NO-3654, and asks that it be marked Prosecution's Exhibit 557; and, subject to proper objections by the Defense, reserves the right of its formal introduction into evidence at a later time.
Witness, this document is an order from the Main Office of Budget and Buildings, on the subject of payment for concentration camp labor, and it is dated 11 July, 1940 is it not?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. As Chief of Main Department I, your department was interested in the payment for the use of prisoner labor; is that not correct?
A. From the tasks of the Main Division I/5, in the Main Office I, yes, that can be derived from it.
Q. Now, this document shows the SS enterprises obtained prison inmate labor at a cheaper, or lessor rate, than did the enterprises not SS owned; does it not?
A. Yes, one can see from the document that in SS enterprises they had to pay thirty pfennigs per person with the approval of the Minister for finance; and that in privately owned enterprises the tariffs were different from one case to another.
Q. Did any reports of payment for prison labor in SS enterprises come to your office or to one of the subsections in your department?
A What kind of reports do you refer to, counsel?
Q. The reports of income from the use of prisoner labor.
A. Well, I suppose so, because the Main Department I/I dealt with these matters and therefore I assume that these registrations concerning the amount of the indemnifications came into the Office I/I.
Q. Then at any time it was possible for you to know the approximate figure of income which the Waffen-SS or the Reich Treasury enjoyed from the allocation of prisoner labor, was it not?
A Well, yes, that's quite correct.
Q. Now, on page 2 of this same document I'd like to cal your attention to the distribution list which is on the left-hand side of the page and the number of copies which are on the right-hand side. This distribution list is practically the same as Document 3666 about which you testified some time ago, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. Then, if this document concerns prison camp labor, the reason that the clothing factory at Dachau received five copies was because in the warehouse you worked prison camp labor; is that so?
A. Well, yes, that's what I said already. In the clothing factory in Dachau innate labor was employed.
Q. Then when it says garment factory, Dachau, it does not mean where clothes were manufactured, but it should have meant garment warehouse, Dachau; is that right?
A. Well, Mr. Prosecutor, the official designation of this agency was Bekleidungswerk, clothing plant of the Waffen-SS, Dachau, and this clothing factory had also ready-made enterprises. I have already described that in my testimony, the so-called testing enterprises, but in these enterprises there were no inmates, but civilian workers. The inmates were only in the warehouse where the ready-made garments for the the troops were stocked until they were delivered.
Q. It was also necessary for you to inform yourself personally on how much per day per inmate these prisoners had to be paid out of the funds aloted to your warehouse in Dachau; was it not?
A. The clothing factory in Dachau had no income because it was a Reich financed state institution. Therefore, they had no income. It had a budget from which its expenses were paid. As far as these enterprises were concerned where the Reich employed inmates, there was no payment in cash of the inmates but only a booking because, after all, the money went from the Reich to the Reich. In other words, from the Reich Treasury back into the Reich treasury, and therefore there was only a booking compensation and not a cash payment.
Q. Are you trying to say, witness, that the five copies which went to the garment factory, Dachau, were sent merely for information; that this factory did not have to pay 30 pfennigs per day per man for the use of their labor?
A. Well, of course, there they had to book at least 30 pfennigs per inmate for the employment of labor. That was for the expenses of the camp as expense from the Reich budget at the same time as income to the Reich budget for employment of labor.
Q. The effect was that certain enterprises, Reich owned, received free concentration camp labor, did they not?
A. Well, I just said that this was arranged by booking. It was entered in the income of the Reich as paument for the inmates who were employed in the Reich factories, but of course, it was not paid in cash because that would have been a nonsense if the Reich had paid to the Reich, but in the income of the Reich this money was shown.
THE PRESIDENT: We have decided it was a "wash" transaction.
MR. WALTON: My question was whether the effect was that the Reich owned enterprise received free concentration camp labor. If I am in order, I move that the answer of the witness on the stand be stricken as non-responsive to the question.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I think it was responsive. The meaning that I got was that there was no actual transfer of cash but merely counter book entries, a "wash" transaction between the Reich and the SS.
MR. WALTON: Very well, sir, if the Tribunal is satisfied that the answer is to the effect that the Reich got free labor, that's all I wanted.
THE PRESIDENT: We are.
MR. WALTON: The prosecution next offers for identification Document No. 3658, and asks that it be marked prosecution exhibit 558 and subject to proper objection by the defense, reserves the right of its formal introduction in evidence at a later time.
Q. (By Mr. Walton) Now, witness, this document is a formal notice from the representative of your Main Department I/5, the Allocation Officer at Buchenwald, to the Camp Commandant notifying him that from October 1 of 1940 there would be no more free prisoner Labor furnished to the SS enterprises or offices in the camp, but that on the contrary, a charge of 30 pfennigs per man per day-
THE PRESIDENT: Reichsmarks, not pfennigs, reichsmarks, isn't it?
MR. WALTON: Sir, it's dash point thirty.
THE PRESIDENT: I always forget the decimal.
Q. (By Mr. Walton) (Cont'd)--a charge of 30 pfennigs per man per day would be charged the offices which he names in his notice; is that right?
A. Well, this is just the procedure I have tried to explain a while ago; that is, this payment of the Reich to the Reich and all these agencies were Reich agencies and the Reich Finance Ministry probably at that time book compensation would take place, in order to have the total income for inmate labor on the asset side of the Reich Treasury book and that therefore the Reich Finance Minister wanted to know exactly how much he would receive in total for the inmate labor, and therefore this decree was issued according to which even the Reich agencies had to book and had to pay for the labor assignment of inmates.
MR. WALTON: The witness is anticipating a bit the questions which he thinks I shall ask him.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, he is right, isn't he?
MR. WALTON: No sir, I am sorry.
THE PRESIDENT: Doesn't this letter indicate that this is merely a bookkeeping method of recording a hidden cost item?
MR. WALTON: It does on its face, Your Honor, but I intend to go a little bit aside from it as to the reasons for it.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
Q. (By Mr. Walton) Are you acquainted with the prison labor allocation branch office head in Buchenwald in 1940; do you remember who he was?
A. The labor assignment leader at Buchenwald was Untersturmfuehrer Grimm as can be seen from the document.
Q. Yes, Now, SS Untersturmfuehrer Grimm would render regular reports to his office in Berlin, I/5, would he not?
A. Yes.
Q. And I/5 would periodically render to you, as head of the whole department, periodic reports either oral or written; is that right?
A. Well, I already explained in my direct examination that Burboeck came to see me every four and six weeks and reported to me about the most important occurrences. In the meantime he worked with the inspectorate of the concentration camps at Oranienburg because only this close cooperation between Burboeck and Gluecks made it possible to carry out the main task of the Department I/5.
Q. You did not then interest yourself in any matters such as the total receipts over a given period of time for prison allocation labor as come through I/5?
A. Well, concerning these incomings of labor assignment for inmates, Burboeck certainly informed me.
Q. Do you recollect any complaints or any talk concerning this increased charge for prison camp labor as of October 1940?
A. No, I can't recall that.
Q. Do you know if any movement was on foot to repeal the Pohl order or to get Pohl to repeal his order charging 30 pfennigs per man per day for prison camp labor?
A. No, I don't know anything about that.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Then let me call your attention to a document which the Prosecution at this time offers for identification, Document NO-3657, and asks that it be marked Prosecution's Exhibit 559 and subject to proper objection by the Defense reserves the right of formal introduction into evidence at a later time.
Now this document quotes a letter or a part of a letter from the Main Department 1/5 to the Main Office of Budget and Construction, and that is the letter referred to of 24 October 1940. Now then this letter purports to exempt from the payment of these charges for prison camp certain designated departments or offices using prison camp labor. Is that not right?
A I can't derive from the document that offices who used concentration camp labor should not pay. I only can take it from the letter that the concentration camps themselves for the inmates used in the internal services of the concentration camp would not have to pay.
Q That is a point about which we should like more information. What was the difference between economic enterprises of the SS in connection with concentration camps and the term "internal business enterprises" as set forth in this letter?
A When speaking of internal business enterprises of the KL, the concentration camps, if I remember, this meant the internal work shops for repairing the inmates' clothing like shoemakers, tailors who repaired the clothes of the inmates; but here it was not possible to have a big accounting for it in order to make them pay for the inmates who worked on those internal jobs. That, I think, was the reason for this decree.
Q And the success of the internal business enterprises in the concentration camp was the basis or the reason why the SS branched out into its economic enterprises, is that not true?
A I am sorry; I didn't quite get that. It didn't come through.
Q The success of the internal enterprises as designated in this Court No. II, Case No. 4.letter and about which you have testified was the real reason why the Office of Building and Construction, and later the WVHA, branched out into more and more economic enterprises which used a cheap and profitable labor, is that not true?
A Well, the establishment of SS economic enterprises has nothing to do whatsoever with the internal work shops. These were more repair shops for repairing the clothing. In every barracks they existed as well as in the concentration camps.
MR. WALTON: May it please the Tribunal, it has just been discovered that out of the copy in German which the witness now has three very important words have been omitted and the sentence as it now stands in German makes very little, if any, sense; and, therefore, his testimony is correct insofar as he can read it, but he had not all of the -
THE PRESIDENT: -- German.
MR. WALTON: -- contents as in the original document.
THE PRESIDENT: The original letter.
MR. WALTON: I Have a photostat, Sir. I move that the photostat be placed in his hands.
THE PRESIDENT: Surely, of course.
MR. WALTON: And that he be allowed to testify concerning that.
BY MR. WALTON:
Q Witness, since a photostat of the original document is in your hands of 3657, you can see that it concerns among other things the internal business enterprises of the camp. With this additional information, do you wish to testify more or will you stand on your original testimony as to the difference between economic enterprises and internal business enterprises insofar as the concentration camp was concerned?
A I have nothing to add to my statements.
MR. WALTON: The Prosecution is through with that document, Sir, but I felt it necessary to turn it over to him. The Prosecution at Court No. II, Case No. 4.this time offers for identification Document NO-3699, and asks that it be marked Prosecution's Exhibit 560, and subject to proper objection by the Defense reserves the right of formal introduction into evidence at a later time.
Since that document is not here, the Prosecution withdraws its offer of Document NO-3699, and desires at this time to offer for identification Document 3667 and asks that it be marked Prosecution's Exhibit 560, and subject to proper objection by the Defense reserves the right of its formal introduction into evidence at a later time.
BY MR. WALTON:
Q Witness, the document which you now hold is a memorandum directed to the offices of the Main Office of Budget and Buildings in the concentration camps of Dachau, Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen, Mauthausen, Neuengamme and Auschwitz on the subject of compensation for prisoner labor. Can you tell from the document which you have who issued this memorandum?
A The director of the Main Department, Burboeck, issued the document.
Q Was this document issued on your own responsibility or in conformance with the general policy for that particular section of your department?
A The latter is true.
Q It was issued, then, in conformity with the general policy of your department?
A Yes, that's right.
THE PRESIDENT: Who issued the letter, please?
MR. WALTON: The witness testified that the head of Main Department 1/5, a man by the name of Burboeck, is the actual author of the document.
BY MR. WALTON:
Q Now will you explain in paragraph 1 why it was necessary according to your own knowledge of affairs at that time to issue retro Court No. II, Case No. 4.active supplementary demand vouchers to November 1, 1940, for reporting by all economic enterprises of the SS where prisoners were employed.
A Well, it is here a question of the tariff decree for the post accounting for inmate labor for less than six hours per day. Apparently up to that date the work had not been paid up to four or six hours and not accounted for, and now they retroactively made them pay for four hours and over or less than four hours. For four hours and over four hours a whole working day was accounted for and for under four hours a half a day. That is the sense of the regulation.
Q Then on the face of it this document purports to show that a regular prisoner working day was four hours, is that right? I mean it was six hours per day?
A No, that is not correct. I suppose that orders had been given that these thirty pfennigs which we could see from the preceding or one of the preceding orders, that these thirty pfennigs were to be paid for all such inmates who worked six hours and more, and, therefore, all those who had worked less than six hours had not been accounted for, and this decree now retroactively compensates for that.
Q Is it not true that the normal day for prison labor was eleven hours, six days a week, and in the event of emergency they could work Sundays?
A Well, this decree concerning the prison labor I only saw from the documents, but it was issued considerably later. I could not tell you what working hours the inmates had at that time.
Q Do you know the decree which you referred to, what hours of work it purported to have set for prison labor?
A For what periods, Mr. Prosecutor?
Q For any periods which prison inmate labor was employed by the Office of Building and Construction, or its successor WVHA. Do you remember any decree which set the prisoner working hours?
A Yes, in these documents I found a decree by the WVHA which regulated the working hours. I think that is from 1942 or 1943.
THE PRESIDENT: Recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess for about fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY MR. WALTON:
Q. Witness, I should like at this time to speak further concerning document No. 3667 concerning which we were talking at the afternoon recess. On the third page of the original which apparently is the third page of the translation there is a list of reports which should be rendered, "Main Office Budget and Buildings, Main Department I/5," is it not?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Now, if you follow me on the first line.
A. Yes.
Q. It gives a file number and then each one of these sub-paragraphs has a designation of either "V of "1/5 before the numbered paragraph. Does your copy have that?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell the Tribunal at this time what the significance of the letter "V" written before paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 8 refer to. I do not refer to the contents of the paragraphs themselves; I merely refer to the initial"V", the significance of that marking on the report.
A. I assume that this means who is to compile these reports and apparently here we are dealing with the manufacture of wood on spoons or the raising of rabbits and the administration there is supposed to make these reports and the paragraphs which are preceded by 1/5, - there the deputy of the main department 1/5 is to compose these reports; I assume that but I don't know it for certain.
Q: Thank you. Now, then, according to this directive, this part of it gives the time at which these reports were due in the Main Office is that not correct?
A: Yes, that is correct.
Q: Your particular attention is directed to paragraph 4 which is the requisition for monthly reports on the manufacture of wooden shoes. Now, I believe that you stated in your direct testimony that from the middle of 1942 raw materials began to reach the critical stage. Already in anticipation of that, your department was manufacturing wooden shoes for the use of prison inmate labor, is that not correct?
A: I believe that you have not repeated my testimony quite correctly. I said that back in 1942 there was a severe shortage in the field of leather; however, I did not bring it in with the connection with the manufacture of wooden shoes. I believe I can recall that at the beginning of the war Himmler ordered that such wooden shoes should be procured. Now, after I look at the document, I can recall that in this respect, he also pointed out in particular that he referred to in particular to the manufacture of wooden spoons. I have further testified that this manufacture of wooden shoes was being discontinued by us after it was discovered that the wooden shoes were not suitable for the work. However, the concentration camps themselves later on continued to manufacture wooden shoes. The manufacture of wooden shoes at this period of time originated from an order of the Reichsfuehrer, according to which such wooden shoes were to be produced. This manufacture was discontinued by us approximately around the middle of 1941. I cannot give the exact date, but I believe that was the approximate period of time.
Q: Then at this time, the office of Budget and Construction was still in the manufacture of wooden shoes under the Himmler order?
A: Yes, this branch of the Main Department 1/5 is contained in the chart where the special assignments are listed, with the breeding of rabbits and the production of wooden shoes.
Q: Now, your attention is directed to paragraph 6 which follows. This paragraph states that on the 5th and 20th of each month strength reports from the concentration camps will be sent to the Department 1/5 B in Oranienburg. What was the difference between the Department 1/5 in Berlin and 1/5 Bain Oranienburg?
A: I believe that I have pointed out that already when another document was presented. The Department 1/5 B at Oranienburg was the liaison agency of the Main Department 1/5 with the Inspectorate of the concentration camps until the time when the whole Main Department 1/5 was transferred to Oranienburg. This establishment of the Department 1/5 B at Oranienburg proves my testimony that the work of the Main Department 1/5 was impossible from Berlin. The main part of the orders to the concentration camps directly could only be issued by the Inspectorate of the concentration camps. As for this purpose, 1/5 had to work together with Gluecks very closely. This was one of the main reasons which caused me to again turn over the main Department 1/5 as quickly as possible to somebody else.
Q: Then Department 1/5 B at Oranienburg was, in effect, the liaison office to your Berlin Department 1/5, is that correct?
A: Yes, that is correct.
Q: And that a close cooperation between the two departments was constantly maintained, is that true?
A: Well, that was within the nature of the task. If inmates had to be assigned labor, then, of course, the agency which would dispose of the inmates had to be included in the matter and had to collaborate very closely.
Q: Now, you could at any time gain a very good knowledge of the activities, of the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camp Department through your own connection therewith, could you not?
A: This liaison only existed with respect to labor allocation of the inmates. The other fields of the Inspectorate had nothing to do with this, and they were none of my business.
Q: Then, you could, insofar as labor allocation, and the use of labor allocation in the camp Inspectorate, inform yourself at any time as to the success of the labor allocation program, could you not?
A: Mr. Prosecutor, at that time, we did not have it. It was not yet a war labor allocation program in existence, but the inmates were mainly used by the SS economic enterprises for the execution of very extensive construction tasks. A large program did not yet exist at that time. The labor allocation program only came into existence in 1942.
Q: Then how do you explain the labor allocation orders, the labor allocation documents which have been submitted to you which bear the date in 1940 if the labor allocation program did not begin until 1942?
A: Of course, before 1942, the inmates were used in some work projects; however, I already said in my direct examination that from 1940 to 1941 the number of inmates were so small that no large programs could be made here and could be planned. The inmates who were furnished for the work were used for construction measures, and they were employed in the SS economic enterprises.
Q: Very well. We shall proceed to paragraph 9 which states in effect that on the 20th of each month a general report from all branch offices of 1/5, on everything that occurred during the preceding month, was due in Berlin. This detailed report -- was it the policy of your office to have detailed reports on all activities of all your sub-departments?
A: That was an ordered by the Main Department 1/5. The heads of the branch offices of the concentration camps had to submit a monthly report to Burboeck about everything that was connected with this allocation of labor so that Burboeck would have some insight into the work of his subordinate agencies.
Q: And Burboeck in turn could report to you on any phase in which you made inquiry or in which you were interested, could he not?
A: Of course, I asked Burboeck about the questions where I was interested, and he gave me the necessary information.
Q: Was any progress record kept by your division of the work on construction and other work projects performed by concentration camps inmates?
A: I haven't quite understood your question. Could you please repeat the question once more?
Q: Yes. You have testified that the concentration camp inmates were engaged in a number of activities. Was there any progress record as to the amount of work which they completed from day to day, from week to week, from month to month kept by your division on construction and on other work projects performed by these inmates?
A: I don't know that. I can't give you any information about that.
Q: I will ask you whether or not a photographic record of the productive utilization of prisoner labor was ever kept?
A: I can't answer this question with yes or no. I just don't know.
MR. WALTON: The prosecution at this time offers for identification Document 3651 and asks that it be marked Prosecution Exhibit 561; and subj ect to the proper objection by counsel for the defense, reserves the right of its formal introduction at a later time.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Witness, Document NO-3651 is divided into two parts, the first one being a cover letter by Gluecks that was sent to the Commandant of the main Concentration Camps, which gives the permission of the Concentration Camp Inspectorate for the taking of photographs by commanders of working parties; and permission is, of course, restricted to certain officials; and the private concerns are forbidden to take pictures of concentration camp inmates at work. We are particularly interested in page 2 of that original which is the order that issued from your Main Department I/5 on this same subject of taking photographs. Now, after glancing over that document, do you remember seeing a photographic record of the work of concentration camp inmates?
A May I please read it first?
Q That's quite all right.
A I can recall that the Main Office Budget and Construction also had an agency which had the task of making photographic records of the construction and the development of the SS administration. Probably this department also made the request to be able to take pictures of work performed by inmates in the concentration camps. This approval could only be issued by the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps as is shown by the first document.
In the summer or fall of 1941 the Chief of the Main Office Pohl dissolved this agency. What happened to the documents there I do not know. At any case I cannot recall ever having seen pictures from the concentration camps taken of inmates at work. However, I am quite sure that such pictures were taken.
Q Is it not true that one department of the Main Office Budget and Building contained an archives department?
AAn archives department, a department where documents were kept? I cannot remember that.
Q You do not remember whether or not your department ever had an archives sub-section?
A Oh, you are talking about an archives section. Oh, yes, we Court No. II, Case No. 4.did have that at one time.
The archives had the task of keeping important written documents which showed in particular the development of the SS Administration.
Q Photographs also were kept in this archive department, were they not?
A Yes, certainly. I'm sure that important photographs were also kept there.
Q Now, then, if these photographs were taken on the actual construction work, who was responsible for sending them in to the archives section?
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO): Mr. Walton, do you intend to introduce some photographs?
MR. WALTON: I intend to introduce, sir, an archives order signed by Loerner himself and some subsequent documents showing that the Chief was personally delivered a photographic album concerning a construction job in which concentration camp inmates were used.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO): Why don't we get directly to that? He doesn't deny that photographs were made; and I'd confront him with the document which shows that his name is involved.
MR. WALTON: I'm coming right to it, sir. When he testified this, as far as I know, it is the first time an archives department was mentioned in this case; and I wanted the Court to be acquainted with the fact that there was one and its function. However, if it has already been in evidence, I'm sorry.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO): No. No, that hasn't been in evidence; but he now admits that photographs were taken, so get right to the photographs.
MR. WALTON: Very good, sir.
BY MR. WALTON:
Q Did I understand you to say that you ordered the establishment of a photography and film department in Amt I of the Main Building Office?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A Whether I or Pohl ordered it I don't know anymore. In any case I know that it was established. It may be that I ordered it to be established. However, I should like to emphasize from the very beginning that this was not an archive which had to compile and collect the documents for the labor of inmates; but it had to keep all the documents pertaining to the SS administration.
Q Then perhaps your memory will be refreshed when the so-called archives' order Number 2, which I am about to hand you, is placed before you.
MR. WALTON: The Prosecution at this time offers for identification Document NO-3702, and asks that it be marked Prosecution's Exhibit 562. Subject to proper objection by the defense, the prosecution reserves the right of its formal introduction into evidence at a later time.
Q Witness, does the document before you now refresh your memory as to the establishment of this department in your own sphere in the Office of Budget and Construction?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Now then, I notice that you regret in this document that no photographic record was ever made of the construction of the Main Office Budget and Building itself. Was this building put up by concentration camp labor on Unter Den Eichen in Berlin?
AAre you referring to the building Unter Den Eichen where the Main Office was located afterwards?
Q I called your attention to the third sentence in the third paragraph.
THE PRESIDENT: He just wants to know what building you asked him about.
Q I am speaking of the buildings which housed in Berlin the offices of the Main Office Building and Construction.
A That house at Geisbergstrasse was a house which was approximately thirty years old where the agency was located. The new building, Court No. II, Case No. 4.Unter Den Eichen, was a block of dwellings which was also completed by the construction firm which had begun to building this structure.