A: No.
Q: So, as I understand your testimony, you worked at Berlin for three and a half years drawing plans and sketches, and not one single building that you ever sketched was ever built, that is right, isn't it?
A: That is not correct. Two army hospitals were established according to the plants. One was at Uluw, Finland, and the second one was established at Dnjepropetrowsk, Russia. One hospital had five hundred beds; the other one had a capacity of one thousand beds. Furthermore, the army hospital department at Wuerzburg was already established, which I have already discussed. The drafts which I had worked out were destined for the construction of hospitals in peacetime.
Q: So three buildings were erected. Is that all that were erected?
A: Three buildings were newly constructed. That is all I know about it. All the other facilities were established in buildings which had already been previously constructed.
Q: And do you know who carried out the actual construction of the hospital at Wuerzburg that you just mentioned? It was Wuerzburg, wasn't it?
A: Yes, it was Wuerzburg. The Construction Inspectorate in Munich had to give the orders for that because it was competent for Wuerzburg.
Q: Do you know whether concentration-camp inmates were used in the construction of the hospital?
A: No. I myself wasn't in Wuerzburg.
Q: You assume, don't you, that inmates were used?
A: No, no concentration camp was located in Wuerzburg or in the vicinity, and this hospital was located in the area of the university clinics.
Q: You believe then that no inmates were used?
A: Yes, I believe that.
Q: Who carried out the actual construction of the other two hospitals in the occupied territory in Finland and in Russia?
A: Well, I worked out the basic plans. The construction work in Finland was carried out by combat engineer untis, and in Russia, as far as I know, the same thing applied.
Q: In Dnjepropetrowsk?
A: Yes, in Dnjepropetrowsk.
Q: Referring to your field of task in C-II/1, food and clothing, you testified yesterday that your task wag to carry out the basic planning for a clothing office of the Waffen-SS, and that this order was given to you in 1942 by Kammler. Was this office ever constructor
A: No.
Q: You heard, did you not, about the so-called "A" projects under Kammler, A-1, A-2, and A-3, underground building projects?
A: I have heard of it only here in the course of this trial.
Q: You never heard of it before?
A: I never heard anything about this code name before.
Q: Did you hear about the "B" projects, the surface building projects under Kammler?
A: No.
Q: Did you ever hear about it?
A: No.
Q: You didn't see it in the documents.
A: No, I never saw it.
Q: Did you hear about the "S" projects, S-3 at Ohrdruff?
A: No, that also was completely unknown to me.
Q Did you hear about the V-weapon projects under Kammler at Dora, V-2 weapons, at Laura?
A No, both these code names were also unknown to me.
Q Did you hear about any of the armament conferences that officials in the WVHA had with Schreiber?
A No, it is completely unknown to me.
Q Did you hear about the carbine production at Buchenwald concentration camp?
A That Carbines were produced there I have seen here from the documents?
Q And you didn't know about it before you saw it in the documents in this case?
A No, I didn't know that.
Q You didn't know that pistols were being produced at Neuengamme concentration camp?
A Pistols at Neuengamme? Yes, as far as I can recall it did come to my knowledge, and I heard about the following incident there. A private architect from Hamburg, as far as I know, had made a contract with the factory, and when afterwards the contract by the architect was to be carried out some difficulties arose. This architect turned to me, and he requested me to give him my expert opinion so that he would be able to receive his pay. As far as I know I heard on this occasion that this was a contract between an architect, Hoeger, or a name of that sort, and the Walther Works which produced pistols.
Q He consulted you because under your supervision was a main section called arms and ammunition, is that correct?
A No, he turned to Dr. Kammler, and Dr. Kammler turned the matter over to me. That was in the Department ZV. That was legal in connection with construction matters.
Q: Kammler considered you an expert on arms and ammunition installations, didn't he?
A: He certainly did not. The reason is that I was not an expert.
Q: Why did he have an office under you, the only office in Amtsgruppe C which dealt with arms and ammunition? Why did he have this office under you?
A: I couldn't say. Dr. Kammler did that without notifying me or without asking my assistance, and he listed it in this way in his organizational chart.
Q: Well, it is true, isn't it, that Kammler consulted you very frequently on his arms and ammunition program?
A: Dr. Kammler did not inform me and did not ask my advice in any matter at all in his arms and ammunition program.
Q: Are you telling us that you never talked to Kammler about his munitions program?
A: No.
Q: No, you are not telling us that, or no, you didn't talk to him?
A: No, I answered the question with no, I didn't discuss the matter with him.
Q: Now this ZV or special task office under you was called general affairs relating to the building inspectorate, and you told us that this dealt with police matters, policing the buildings. It is true, isn't it, that it was the task of this office to make inspections after buildings were erected to see if they had complied with the local regulations, the county regulations, that you told us about yesterday?
A: No, this conception is completely wrong. These were fundamental building police matters. These were legal matters devoted to the construction in the area where the construction took place. I at the top level had nothing to do with construction - police certificate
Q: And the officials in this office never made any trips to inspect a building after it had actually been constructed, is that right?
A: That should be correct. I cannot recall a single instance that the only expert that was in this department, that was Obersturmfuehrer Fun* should ever have taken a trip in order to handle any police or construction legal matters in a building.
Q: You told us that Kammler insisted on personally signing all of the plans, personally approving the sketches of the construction inspectorate. Do you know whether or not he consulted with anyone before he approved these plans, did he have any discussions at all?
A: As far as my plans were concerned he only discussed them with me. I don't have any further knowledge on that.
Q: You told us he kept a very tight control, very tight personal control over Amtsgruppe C, is that right?
A: He could not carry out a personal control over Amtsgruppe C because he was absent from Berlin very frequently.
Q: Before he was absent? He started to be absent in 1943, you told us, when he moved his office out of Berlin. Prior to that time you told us that he insisted on doing everything himself.
A: Even up to the end he insisted on personally issuing all permissions and making all fundamental decisions, even after 1943.
Q: Then you said in 1943 when he move his office that he lost contact with Amtsgruppe C, is that right?
A: Well, his contact became very loose, yes.
Q: And that meant that his deputies, and at a certain time you were his deputy, had a good deal more responsibility and control over the office, didn't it?
A. I must correct that I never carried out any business as a deputy of Dr. Kammler. That was put on paper while he was away on leave, but at the time I was sick and I was unable to carry out any deputizing for him.
Q. Well, let me ask you the previous question, worded a bit differently. Since Kammler lost contact with C it is true, isn't it, that his deputy--whoever the deputy was--carried out most of the functions that Kammler had thereto performed?
A. No, that is not correct. Dr. Kammler himself took care of all his official business up to the end. The deputy only had a very limited authority in that respect, and I have described that already before.
Q. Then it is not true that Kammler lost touch with Amtsgruppe C, is it?
A. He certainly was not negligent. He maintained his contact to the best of his ability. I have already stated that the knowledge was the purpose of the discussion of the departmental specialists.
Q. Now, concerning the documents in Document Book No. 20 which you discussed, concerning the destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto, you realize, do you not, that this covered the exact period when you were Kammler's deputy? The first document which was signed by Kammler as chief of Amtsgruppe C was on the 6th of September, 1943--No, I am sorry, it is the 29th of September, 1943. And then there are five subsequent reports--four subsequent reports, five in all; the last one on the 29th of July, 1944, that Kammler was supervising the destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto at the same time that you were his deputy. Do you want us to believe that you knew nothing whatsoever of the activities that Kammler was carrying out in this respect?
A. I don't want to tell you that, but that is actually the truth. That is the way it was.
Q. You had no discussions whatsoever about this? You saw no correspondence about it?
A. No, I did not discuss this matter with Kammler, nor did I discuss it with anybody else. I only heard of the destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto and the removal of the debris here in the course of this trial.
Q. And this is the first time that you heard that this was carried out by Amtsgruppe C?
A. That is the only time that I could see a connection between Amtsgruppe C in any connection with this action. That was the only time I observed that.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Mr. Robbins, did I understand you to say he did not know of the Warsaw action until he got to Nurnberg? Didn't know of it at all?
MR. ROBBINS: That is the way I understood the witness. (To the witness) Is that correct?
WITNESS: Yes, that is correct.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: It was in the newspapers, wasn't it?
WITNESS: No, I don't believe that anything was reported in the newspapers about this action because I cannot remember it.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. You didn't see it in the newspapers? Is that what you are telling us?
A. I personally am of the opinion that only on one occasion a military action in the city of Warsaw was mentioned. However, that was not in 1943, but took place at a time when the Russians were already outside the gates of Warsaw. Therefore, that must have happened at the end of 1944. Reports were published then about an uprising at Warsaw which was eliminated by military force.
Q. But you didn't hear or read about an action in 1943 or the first part of 1944?
A. No, that action was completely unknown to me.
Q. I just have one question on this complex. Is it your contention, and you are testifying here under oath, that you never dealt with or saw or heard of any plan or any building or construction, any sketch or blueprint, or any building or construction of any kind in any concentration camp?
A. Yes, as far as I know, I never designed any sketch for a concentration camp.
Q. Did you ever see a sketch or did you ever discuss a sketch or a plan or a blueprint or a framework?
A. I can't recall that. I don't know in what connection that would have taken place.
Q. Well, you would remember it if you had done it, wouldn't you?
A. Yes, I would have to assume that I would have to recall it.
Q. And so it is your testimony that you had nothing whatever to do with any sketched or plans or blueprints or any kind of construction or building whatever that was eventually to be carried out in a concentration camp?
A. Yes, I cannot recall a single instance, and I cannot recall at all that on some occasion or somehow this should have taken place in my office.
Q. And this was never discussed in any of the Saturday meetings of the office chiefs? Never talked about any plans, any construction, the use of inmate labor in these weekly meetings.
A. No, in the conferences which I attended, as far as I believe and that I can remember with certainty-concrete construction matters and local construction matters were never discussed.
Q. The words "concentration camp" or "inmates" were never even mentioned?
A. No.
Q. I only have about five more minutes.. . I think I can finish.
How long did you work under Kammler, witness, before entering the WVHA?
A. From the first of September 1936 until approximately May or June of 1940.
Q. And then you worked for him from 1936 until the end of the war. He saw to it hat you joined him in the WVHA when he was transferred?
A. Yes, he personally told me that he initiated my transfer from the army to the Waffen-SS.
Q. He must have had a very high regard for your ability. Is that true?
A. Well, I don't want to say so myself--but it is quite possible.
Q. But still he didn't ever discuss the most important things that he was working on, namely, his munition program, with you?
A. He never discussed it with me, and in this connection I would like to say that the personal relationship between Kammler and myself was quite tense for a while. We were not friends even when we were together in the Luftwaffe.
Q. Witness, you knew, didn't you, that he was making efforts to obtain your transfer to the Waffen SS, and you had asked him to make those efforts?
A. I did not see Dr. Kammler since 1940, when he left the Reich Air Ministry and I saw him again when I reported to him.
Q. Didn't you tell him that you didn't want to go into the army, and that you thought you could get a higher rank in the Waffen-SS?
A. No. I just told you I didn't speak to Kammler during that entire period of time.
Q. When you heard that you were being transferred to the Waffen-SS, you didn't make any objections or make any efforts to prevent that transfer?
A. In my opinion I was unable to do that.
Q. You didn't tell anyone that you had already been called up as a lieutenant in the Luftwaffe?
A. I was not a lieutenant in the Luftwaffe.
Q. You told us yesterday that you had already been called up. Was it by the army or was it by the Luftwaffe?
A. I had been called up by the army.
Q. You didn't tell anyone that you already had been called up by the army, and that, therefore, you shouldn't be transferred to the Waffen-SS?
A. I only discussed the whole matter with my wife. I hardly believe that there was any reason for me to discuss this matter with any other persons.
Q. You didn't have any objection to your transfer to the Waffen-SS, did you? You were quite pleased with it?
A. I didn't care whether I was to be transferred to the Waffen-SS. However, when I heard that I was to be transferred to a construction agency of the Wehrmacht, I was very much in agreement with that.
Q. As a matter of fact, you wanted to be transferred to the Waffen-SS, didn't you? So you could carry out your career as an engineer rather than being taken into the army?
A. No, I didn't even think about the matter at the time. If the army had come first, or if Mr. Kammler had not had his influence, I would have remained with the army, and I would have been assigned to some unit or other.
Q. Well, when you received your orders to be transferred to the Waffen-SS, you received them as an SS-man, did you not?
You were already a member of the Allgemeine-SS?
A. I received this order as a lieutenant in the reserve from the army personnel office.
Q. Did your membership in the Allgemeine-SS have anything to do with your obtaining admission to the Waffen-SS? Or with your transfer?
A. A membership in any organization certainly was not known to the army personnel office because no lists were kept by that in the army personnel office. I would say to the contrary: the army demanded that every person who was conscripted, that that person's membership in the General-SS should rest for that time.
Q. You don't claim, do you, that you were forced to join the General--SS, or conscripted or drafted into the Allgemeine SS?
A. I voluntarily entered the General SS.
Q. And you voluntarily entered the Nazi Party?
A. I entered the Party in 1937 because Himmler had ordered me to do so.
Q. Himmler gave you an order to join the Nazi Party?
A. He did not give me that order personally--but Himmler ordered that all members of the SS who were not yet members of the Party should join now. That was in the year 1937.
MR. ROBBINS: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: We will do it in the morning. I just wanted to know if you were finished. Tomorrow morning at nine thirty.
THE MARSHAL: This Tribunal is in recess until )930 tomorrow morning.
( The Tribunal afjourned unti 26 June 1947, at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of Military Tribunal II, Case 4, in the matter of the United States of America against Oswald Pohl, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 26 June 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Toms presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal II is now in session God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal announced that on Saturday the session would be from nine until one. We find that if we run until one o'clock the military personnel attached to the Tribunal will have no place to get their lunch; their mess closes at one o'clock. So we will change that, and run until twelve thirty so the Army can be fed.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, I have only a few additional questions I should like to put to the defendant Kiefer, if I may.
MAX KIEFER - Resumed
CROSS EXAMINATION - Continued BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness, do you know the present whereabouts of Wirtz, who was one-time Chief of Office C-3?
A. I can't understand the name.
Q. W-i-r-t-z.
A. No, I don't know his whereabouts since 1943.
Q. Do you know whether he is living or dead?
A. I don't know. Since 1943 I haven't had any contact with him.
Q. What about the one-time Chief of Office C-4, Blaschek? Do you know whether he is living or dead?
A. No, I don't know that either.
Q. Do you know about Lenzer who was chief of C-5?
A. Oh, Lenzer, you mean. Well, I heard that he died at the seige of Posen. He is supposed to have died in combat.
Q. When and to where did you evacuate your office -- towards the end of the war?
A. On the 13th of April, 1945.
Q. And to where?
A. To Munich --to Munich Freimann; that is a suburb of Munich.
Q. And who accompanied you?
A. At the time I was accompanied by approximately twelve or thirteen women who were evacuated from Berlin because of the approaching Russians, and they had received the permission to go to the southern Germany. The, Untersturmguehrer Hafer accompanied me, also two or three men from the Staff Company of the WVHA.
Q. From the Staff Company? What was that?
A. That was a group in the house which mainly served in air-raid procautions.
Q. Were there any members of the WVHA in your area, where you evacuated?
A. No.
Q. Did you take any part in, or have you any knowledge of, the distruction of the files and papers of your office?
A. Yes. Early in April I received the order to burn the files and to destory them which were not necessary any more in order to continue our work, and the rest of them had to be turned over to the staff, and they had to be packed.
Q. And do you know what happened to those files?
A. I was told that they were to be transferred to the Southern Germany. However, I don't know what happened to them.
Q. And you don't know that they were destroyed?
A. I don't know that, no.
Q. Do you know that there was an order to destroy them?
A. I received this order from Prof. Dr. Schleif.
Q. I want to ask you one or two questions about your Main Section concerning arms and ammunition. I didn't understand from your testimony what kind of plans and designs were drawn in this Main Section. Will you explain that, please?
A. Only a basic sketch was made for the explanation of the target range facilities for the Wehrmacht. I had to work out the security measures for the establishment of such facilities in accordance with army regulations. And then we also made an additional plan in connection with this. Other plans about actual ammuntion depots and other facilities were not worked out in my office during the war.
Q. You say you worked out plans for rifle ranges, or shooting ranges? Is that it?
A. No, we made a basic plan in the way of an explanation, and it is also contained in the army regulations.
Q. For what?
A. There is a certain regulation that rifle ranges have to be established in a certain way, and then these regulations I explained by additional sketches; earth-mounds so that the bullets would be caught, and the area had to be sucure so that the bullets wouldn't pass by certain points.
Q. Were any such rifle ranges constructed?
A. I don't know anything about that, and I don't believe that new rifle ranges were constructed during the war.
Q. You just drew plans? None were constructed?
A. We make these explanatory sketches with regard to the regulations about the establishment of such rifle ranges.
Q. And this was just post-war planning, is that right?
A. These were the regulations for these facilities. They could have been used; this regulation could have applied during the war if a rifle range would have had to be constructed in some place or other.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q You believe that no such rifle ranges were constructed, is that correct?
A Yes, I didn't know anything about it.
Q And are we to understand that you never drew any plans for munitions depots, arms depot, or anything concerning arms and ammunition other than these rifle ranges?
A No.
Q That is the only thing that this main division ever did, was draw some plans for rifle ranges?
A Yes, the regulations for the rifle ranges and the security regulations for the storage of ammunition and explosives. However, no sketches had to be made for that.
Q And do I understand your testimony to be that at no time during the war did you ever hear that any one was killed in a concentration camp? Is that your testimony?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q And you never heard at any time that anyone was ever mistreated in a concentration camp?
A No, I didn't hear that either.
Q Will you tell us what your conception of the duties of Office C-VI were?
A I only know the tasks of C-VI from the organizational distribution chart. I have never been in C-VI and I have never entered the offices of that particular Amt. Therefore, I have never been able to gain any insight into the details of it.
Q You have no idea of what Eirenschmalz's job was?
A I had an idea according to the tasks on the organizational chart and of course since that list had been made out I had a general idea about that. However, I did not know just how C-VI was working during the war, because this work varied considerably from the work which had been done during peace time. On the one hand we had the open budget and on the other hand a certain budget was fixed. There is a Court No. II, Case No. 4.little difference in that.
Q He was with you in these Saturday morning conferences. Didn't you get an idea from those conferences? Didn't he ever say anything?
A No, I had the impression that Eirenschmalz hardly made appearance at these conferences. I can't recall that Eirenschmalz made a statement of any kind during these conferences or if he was asked a question there.
Q You don't remember his ever saying anything?
A No, I can't recall that at all.
Q Witness, he has told this Tribunal that he attended those conferences regularly. Are you stating that you didn't see him there regularly?
AAt the conferences of the Office Chiefs in which I participated, I did see Eirenschmalz on various occasions and frequently. Whether I saw him at every conference I can't say any more.
MR. ROBBINS: I have no more questions.
DR. MAYER: Your Honor, I only want to ask a very few questions in redirect. All I want to do is to clarify a few small matters which have not been clarified quite well.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. MAYER:
Q If I understood you correctly yesterday you were asked by the prosecution, Witness, whether in the time from September 1943 to the middle of 1944 you did not carry out a deputization of matters for Dr. Kammler, in particular, during the time when Kammler dealt with the action: "Warsaw Ghetto". I now want to ask you the following question: When did you take over your duties again after your sickness in September 1943, which sickness is actually shown by Document 1244?
A I became sick in the middle of August 1943 and I resumed my activities in the last days of the month of September and the first Court No. II, Case No. 4.days in the month of October.
Q Had Kammler already returned from his trip when you again resumed your work?
AAfter I had resumed my service, Dr. Kammler returned a few days later, in the course of the same month, in October. Professor Dr. Schleif came to Amtsgruppe C as the permanent deputy of Kammler. Up to that time, Schleif had been in Greece.
Q In the time from the end of September or early in October 1943, up to the arrival of Dr. Kammler, did you have to carry out any deputizing matters for him?
A No, I have already stated that I at the time could not deputize for Kammler and in my direct examination I have already stated that after I resumed my duties I immediately asked what business I should take care of, since the order existed that I was to deputize for Kammler. On this occasion the Adjutant told me that I was not to take care of anything at all, because the matter had already been settled otherwise.
Q Now to another point. The prosecution could not understand it in the cross examination that Dr. Kammler did not have any conferences with you about his armament projects, that is the task which he carried out in his special staff, although he had appointed you as an expert. I now want to ask you the following question: Could you explain to the Tribunal briefly this apparent contrast?
A Yes, that is very easy to explain. Actually there is no contrast at all. I myself was an architect and Dr. Kammler with regard to the armament tasks -- that is, including the V-Weapon production -- was more or less of a military expert -- and didn't know anything at all about these things.
Q If I understood it correctly, the prosecution asked you in the cross-examination whether you entered the WVHA voluntarily and whether you turned to Dr. Kammler personally for this purpose. I therefore want to ask you whether you were transferred to the Waffen Court No. II, Case No. 4.SS because you had turned to Dr. Kammler in person or did you yourself try to be transferred to the Waffen-SS in any other way?
A The order for my transfer was sent to me as Reserve Officer of the Army after I had been conscripted by the Personnel Office of the OKH; therefore it was a military order. It came as a complete surprise to me.
Q When did you find out that Dr. Kammler had initiated your transfer?
A Dr. Kammler told me that when I reported to the Main Office, Budget and Construction at the end of September 1941 and on that occasion he said that he had taken this step in order to have me as an expert in his office for the dwelling program.
DR. MAYER: Thank you, I have no further question.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any questions by other defense counsel?
If not, the Marshal may remove this witness from the witness stand.
(The witness was excused.)
DR. MAYER: Your Honor, the Tribunal informed on the 12th of May, 1947, that I could call the Witness Werner Court for cross-examination. The prosecution has submitted an affidavit by him which is contained in Document Book XI, Document 1580, Exhibit 303. I, however, would not like to call this witness, because I shall present a document by him which will make his cross-examination superfluous.
THE PRESIDENT: It isn't necessary for you to call the witness unless you wish to. You can waive the witness.
DR. MAYER: Yes, Your Honor. For the time being I have reached the end of my presentation of evidence. However, I request that I may submit some additional affidavits later on which in part are still just being prepared.
THE PRESIDENT: You will have the opportunity to present any further documentary proof that you wish.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
DR. MAYER: Thank you, Your Honor. I would like to submit the following information to the Tribunal. On the 20th of June, 1947, through the Defense Information Center I made a request to be able to see the Witness Karl, who is in the prison here, -- his first name is Hubert -- and to examine him in order to obtain some information and I gave the reasons for that request. However, up to the present time, I have not received any notification whether the request has been approved or whether the prosecution has objected to this request and, consequently, whether the request was submitted to the Tribunal for its ruling. I therefore would like to ask the prosecution to inform me whether any objections exist on its part against this request. If this should be the case, then I request the Tribunal to approve my request, because the witness in question was Chief of the Construction Inspectorate South, and, therefore, it is quite possible that he has some information about the connection between Amtsgruppe B and the Construction Inspectorates. According to my information, he also worked in the Office B-I for sometime and therefore he should have some information about the tasks of that office and about some connections between Amt B-I and Amt B-II.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT? What's the name of the witness, please?
DR. MAYER: The name is Karl. His first name is Hubert.
THE PRESIDENT: Hubert Karl.
DR. MAYER: K-a-r-l.
MR. ROBBINS: I think counsel is quite right that the witness Karl is well informed as to the activities of these Amtsgruppen and the prosecution has in its possession an affidavit which Karl gave the prosecution just a few days ago and he is presently engaged in writing additional affidavits which will, I think, very fully explain the activities of the Amtsgruppe B and they will be submitted quite shortly. I intend to submit one during the cross-examination of Eirenschmalz. That's a ten page affidavit which goes into great detail as to the activities and as soon as Karl has completed the other affidavits I would have no objection at all to defense counsel interviewing him and it may very well be that they will want to call Karl to cross-examine him on his affidavit, if that meets with counsels' approval.
DR. MAYER: If I can obtain some information from Karl as soon as possible I certainly would be pleased to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as soon as the witness is through with the affidavits that he is now preparing you will have an opportunity to interview him upon request. Is that what you want?
DR. MAYER: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that's possible. That can be arranged very soon, as soon as he is through with the affidavits that he is now preparing.
DR. MAYER: Yes, your Honor. Thank you. For the time being I have reached the end of my presentation of evidence.
DR. STEIN: Stein, for the defendant Eirenschmalz. Your Honor the Tribunal has permitted me to call three witnesses for cross-examination who have previously given an affidavit. One of these witness es Kohle has already been here in prison. However, on the 18th he Court No. II, Case No. 4.had to be returned to Dachau again.