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.
Whether any inmate labor was used in this construction I don't know. In any case the establishment of this agency of the film and photography department was to serve the purpose of obtaining pictures and photographic evidence about the development of the entire SS administration. This also included pictures from the offices where this administration was working. However, to reach any connection with inmates from that, I just can't see how this is possible. This photograph and film department was not established, after all, in order to photograph the work done by inmates, but to show the development on the whole of the SS administration.
Q But the concentration camp inmates at work were also photographed, were they not?
A Well, that was done also.
Q Here in the fourth paragraph it mentions as an example that Amt III A with its clinker plants, with its quarries, furnishes a great amount of material for photographic record. Do you know whether or not concentration camp inmates were used in those industries?
A Yes, I knew that.
MR. WALTON: The prosecution now offers for identification Document NO-3697, and asks that it be marked Prosecution's Exhibit 563 and subject to proper objections by counsel for defense reserves the right of its formal introduction into evidence at a later time.
Q Now then, the document which you hold in your hand is a file note or a memorandum signed by SS Untersturmfuehrer Grimm of the Reserve and this memorandum shows that the photograph album entitled "Establishing of the Concentration Camp Buchenwald" was turned over to the labor allocation officer by the camp commandant of Buchenwald, Koch, with the request that it be delivered to you. Now when Grimm came to see you, it appears he was not able to deliver this album personally to you because you were at a conference with the Amtschef Oswald Pohl. Does this refresh your memory as to whether or not you have seen a photograph album on a construction of the Buchenwald Concentration Camp?
A. The possibility exists. However, I cannot recall this album anymore. Just what caused Standartenfuehrer Koch to send such an album to me I do not know either.
Q. Then I'll ask you one further question. In this department of archives would such an album be placed for permanent record?
A. Since the establishment of the Concentration Camp Buchenwald actually has nothing to do with the history of the development of the SS administration, I do not believe that this album would have been kept in the archives. However, it is possible that it was.
MR. WALTON: The prosecution at this time offers for identification Document NO-3652. It asks that it be marked Prosecution's Exhibit 564 and subject to proper objection by the counsel for defense reserves the right of its formal introduction into evidence at a later time.
Q. Now, Witness, your attention is directed to this document, and by looking over the heading of the document and the end, which occurs on Page 5 of the original, who issued this document?
A. I issued this document.
Q. Now, according to the distribution, would you state, the distribution. 1-B means the plan of distribution to every member of your department?
A. I haven't, quite understood your question.
Q. Did every department or every individual worker in your department receive a copy of these regulations?
A. I assume that every department received a copy.
Q. That is what I am trying to get at. Were enough copies distributed for each worker to receive one of these service regulations?
A. That is possible.
Q. Also Office III of the Budget and Construction Office received a number of copies; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And the Main Office or the Main Administrative Office received information copies; is that correct?
A. The Chief of the Main Office received one; the Chief of Staff then Offices II and III; then the Operational Main Office; and the Administrative Main Office received one copy each.
Q. Now, this document gives the basic operational procedure and the spheres of work of your department, does it not?
A. Yes.
Q. In the cover letter to this document you offer to discuss with every employee of the office any of their personal worries or needs at any time. This procedure on your part was an effort, was it not, to keep you fully informed at all times as to what work was going on in your department; is that not so?
A. That has nothing to do with the official work of my subordinates. The last sentence was purely a humane matter; and it shows that I would be ready to listen to the personal worries and needs of my employees at any time. I don't that this has anything to do with official matters.
Q. Then your time, in addition to being taken up with official duties, was also available for personal matters of your employees; is that correct?
A. That was just natural for me. It was just natural that I would care and that I would always have an open ear for the personnel worries and needs of my subordinates.
Q. Now, I should like to call your attention to Page 2 of the original copy of Division II which starts off, "The Office-I Budget consists, according to its sphere of work, of the following main departments and independent departments." I particularly call your attention to the following departments which were not a part of the official set-up but were under the control of Office-I, which states that there were four divisions, beginning with the clothing factory of the Waffen SS at Dachau and down to Number 4, the economy inspection for certain named offices. By the date of this document, had the clothing factory of the Waffen SS at Dachau enlarged to include the salvage depots at Ravensbruck and Sachsenhausen?
A. Well, that was a salvage place.
MR. WALTON: Will the interpreter repeat that? I didn't hear that.
THE PRESIDENT: That was a salvage place.
Q. Then it had no connection with the clothing factory at Dachau?
A. Yes, at the time they were subordinated to Dachau.
Q. That's what I asked you to began with. Now, Number 4, what did the Economy Inspection Offices in the East, the Government General, the West, the North, and the South refer to?
A. These Economy Inspection Offices had the same ask as the Main Economic Depots in the Reich. They were the superior agency of the food camps, the food depots in these areas; and when the SS Economic Office was established, they were incorporated into it. In the document which the prosecution has presented, in one of its document books, and which contains the regulations about the establishment of the SS Economists, there is also a paragraph which states that the Economy Inspectorates are to be dissolved and that they should be assigned to the SS Economists. That was the task of the SS Economy Inspection. In the Reich they were called the Main Economic Depots, and in the occupied territories they were called the Economy Inspectorates.
Q. Now, in the occupied territories, were these Inspectorates Depots entitled to receive from other collecting agencies textiles, leather, or such raw materials as would be particularly your sphere?
A. They were agencies which had the task first of all of securing food and of distributing the clothing. Furthermore, they had the task of salvaging the old clothing which was returned by the troops and of sending it back. These were the tasks of the Economy Inspectorates. You can see under Paragraph 4 that Last, Government General, West and North, including the Troop Economy Depots, and their branches come under the jurisdiction of these inspections. That is the last sentence in Paragraph 4 under the listing of the Economy Inspection Offices.
Q. Were these Economy Inspection Offices charged with obtaining and distributing clothing and materials to the concentration camps located in the conquered territories?
A. The Economy Inspections also had the task of furnishing clothing to the troops within the area. This clothing, however, came from the clothing factory of the Waffen SS. I am sure that it equipped the guards of the concentration camps, as was also done in the Reich; and it most probably also fed them.
Q. Did it also take care of distribution of clothing to the concentration camp inmates in conquered territories?
A. It is quite possible because the clothing for the inmates was produced and delivered by the clothing factory. Therefore, the Inspectorates probably also carried out the distribution of this clothing.
Q. Did these Inspectorates also become receiving centers for clothing which was subsequently found to be looted clothing or confiscated clothing?
A. I don't know anything about that.
MR. WALTON: The Prosecution at this time desires to offer for identification Document No. NO-3669, which I ask that it be marked as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 565, subject to the proper objection by the defense to reserve the right of a formal introduction into evidence at a later time.
BY MR. WALTON:
Q Now, witness, at this time you hold some correspondence, concerning the subject of travel orders, and who has the necessary authority to sign them. The significance of this document is whether or not the Inspectorate of the concentration camp maintained administrative authority over your office, or the Labor Allocation Officer, or was he completely under for administrative purposes the office of the Inspectorate of concentration camps?
A Could I please read the document first? I can not say whether or not it is so with this document here; it is a question of permission for duty trips. Whether Gluecks was to give them, or I, or whether the offices of the Inspectorate of concentration camps, or whether the camp commanders would issue it, I don't remember the whole matter, and I can not say anything about it.
Q He states in his letter that duty journeys are to be approved by you, is that right?
A This normally was so, that every member of the Main Office obtained the permission for duty trip from the Main Office, or his deputy, and the Chief of the office.
Q Now, what I am trying to determine is whether or not you maintained supervision and control in matters of administration over your Labor Allocation Officers sent out from Department I/5 to the various concentration camps?
A In explanation I myself said I, of course, did not personally sign the permission for duty trips, but usually the chief of the Main Department would do so. Here I was only to clarify this question fundamentally.
Q I shall rephrase the question. Did your Department I/5 under Burboeck still maintain control and supervision over the representatives of that Department1 1-V who were stationed in the various concentration camps, or were they completely, or more or less completely under the administrative supervision of the Inspectorate for concentration camps?
A So far as I can still recall, these officers were assigned to the concentration camp administration from the economic aspect. However, they received their fundamental orders from the Main Department I/5, that is, the Main Office of Budget and Construction.
Q In the case of a conflict, was it not true that those officers were bound by the orders flowing from your Department I/5 rather than the orders which came from the Inspectorate of the concentration camp?
A Well, I admit that this possibility existed.
Q Then you state, in effect you state that you maintained, or rather your Department I/5 maintained control over the Labor Allocation officers in the concentration camp?
A Yes.
Q Thank you. Is it not true that you worked out the necessary agreement with Gluecks, or the concentration camp Inspectorate, whereby you could retain control over these officers, and delegated this authority for issuing duty travel orders and minor matters to the chief of your section, Burboeck?
A I don't quite understand the question.
MR. WALTON: The Prosecution will withdraw the question and introduce the document first. The Prosecution at this time desires to offer for identification Document NO-3700 and asks that it be marked Prosecution Exhibit 366 and subject to proper objection by the defense reserves the formal introduction into evidence at a later time. Witness, this document has to do with the issuance of a travel order in which, in effect, it says that the Head of Department I/5 has the right to issue travel orders for personnel, does it not?
A This document is not an answer to the question contained in the previous document. This document is an individual permission for an official trip of Grimm to Buchenwald. issued by Burboeck. However, at that time Burboeck already was more or less under the direction of Gluecks.
Q He still signed it as Chief of the Main Department I/5, does he not?
A Well, of course, because he had to do that until the period of time where Himmler approved the official transfer to the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps. As I testified that was in September of 1941.
Q This letter I call to your attention is dated 7 June 1941. However, what significance has the phrase that the prison allocation is responsible for the smooth carrying out of the transfer? Can we assume from this document that the prison allocation officer was also in charge of the transfer of concentration camp inmates from one camp to another?
A No, he wasn't responsible for that. The order could only be issued by the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camp. May I continue? The inmate allocation officer was only to convince himself that the special workers needed for this allocation were actually there. With the transport itself and the order for the transport, he had nothing whatsoever to do. That's shown by the fact that this letter refers to the decree of the Inspectorate of the concentration camps.
Q Then you deny that the labor allocation officer had anything to do with the transfer of concentration camp inmates from one camp to another?
A He was connected with it because he was to convince himself that the inmates were actually furnished according to requirements for specialist workers. However, he had nothing to do with the actual execution of the transport.
MR. WALTON: May it please the Tribunal, I have another document here which, according to my time it's two minutes before the end, and there would not be time enough in which to cross examine this witness. It has some ten or twelve questions I want to ask on it.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's not take any chances. We will recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal is in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
(A recess was taken.)