BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. When the Amtsgruppe D was incorporated into the WVHA, you knew the general purpose of the Amtsgruppe, did you not?
A. What I knew was that Office Group D was dealing with concentration camp matters. Any details of that sphere of work were unknown to me.
Q. Did you know that Amtsgruppe D allocated labor to various private and governmental industries?
A. Yes, that was known to me, at least from hearsay. I was not connected personally with it.
Q. You also knew it from official sources? It was in the organization plan; it was an office for labor allocation? Or did you never look at the organization plan for the WVHA?
A. The organizational table did not tell me that inmates were lent to industries. They could just as easily work in their own enterprises, although a department for allocation of labor was there.
Q. I said government industries and private industries. Is it your testimony, Witness, that you never at any time during the war heard that anyone was mistreated in a concentration camp? Is that what I understood from your testimony yesterday?
A. No such case became known to me.
Q. You never heard anything about anyone being killed in a concentration camp?
A. No.
Q. You never heard about anyone being underfed or undernourished in a concentration camp?
THE PRESIDENT: That has already been covered, Mr. Robbins.
MR. ROBBINS: I don't believe I've asked this witness.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO): You didn't, but his own counsel asked him if he knew of any mistreatment of any kind in the concentration camps; and he said no.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Was it your assumption that everyone in concentration camps were criminals and had been duly tried and placed in a concentration camp after a hearing?
A. I have to assume that. I was unable to assume that any other procedure was followed. Of course, I didn't know the tactics of the Gestapo and its usages; but I assumed that they did everything in a proper manner when they had found facts and established guilt. I was unable to assume anything else.
Q. And you never heard that anyone was ever put in a concentration camp unjustly?
A. No such cases became known to me.
MR. ROBBINS: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further examination by defense counsel?
DR. VON STEIN: If the Tribunal please, I should like to put several questions to the witness; but first I want to know whether the prosecution intends to use Document NO-4007 as an exhibit. If they do not wish to do so, no further questions would be necessary.
MR. ROBBINS: I'm very sorry, I intended to mark NO-4007 for identification as Exhibit Number 572 and offer it at a subsequent time for the purpose of contradicting and impeaching the witness. I should also like to mark for identification an affidavit of Bester and mark it for identification as Exhibit 573. It is Document NO-4008. I should like to offer it at a subsequent time for contradicting and impeaching the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: That hasn't been distributed, has it?
MR. ROBBINS: No, it hasn't, but I'll distribute it.
DR. VON STEIN: If the Tribunal please, I am unable to do anything about these two affidavits. I did not have an opportunity to see my client about this. I therefore ventured to remark before that I might possibly request the Court to have the witness cross examined here. I assume that one talk with my client tonight would be sufficient; and it would therefore be possible tomorrow to cross examine that witness.
But if the Court should be of the opinion that it would be sufficient to obtain only an affidavit from that witness and submit it, this would be agreeable to me, too.
THE PRESIDENT: You can do either one that you like and any time that you like. After these exhibits have been offered in evidence if you then want to recall your client to contradict the affidavits, you may do so, even two weeks from today.
DR. VON STEIN: All right.
MR. ROBBINS: As I stated this morning I am eager to have this witness Karl called for cross examination. Whether or not the prosecution can agree to having an affidavit submitted or not I think is something I will have to consider further. If he is going to be impeached, I think perhaps the best way to do would be to have him called and have him testify here under oath. But perhaps we can meet that question when it arises.
THE PRESIDENT: Until defense counsel has read these affidavits and consulted with his client, he doesn't know whether he wishes to impeach them. He may accept them without impeachment. So we'll have to cross the bridge when we get to it.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION
DR. MAYER: I am representing Dr. Stakelberg for the defendant Fanslau. Witness, during your cross examination a certain amount of confusion has arisen of a general nature which I wish to clear up. You told us as far as the Waffen-SS was concerned about 1936 to the end of the war, do you by using the expression "Waffen-SS" means the Verfuegungstruppe for special tasks or anything else?
A. Whenever I used the term "Waffen-SS2 it is correct only as from 1940. Before then it was the Verfuegungstruppe, the special task unit, and there again I would like to make the distinction that after 1942 the Waffen-SS in the Main Operational Office had nothing to do with the Waffen SS, which is known generally as the Waffen-SS and which were, among other things, in charge of the concentration camps.
Q. Witness, at that time, that is, from 1936 onward, was there conscription in Germany?
A. When conscription started I do not remember.
Q. Was the special task unit, the Vergungstruppe, regarded as a purely military unit and was service in the troop regarded as military service?
A. Service in the military task unit was a complete military service. You had to stay there for eight years if you wanted to be a NCO and as an officer you had to stay there until you were 45 years of age.
Q. A final question. Were only members of the general, the Allgemeine SS before that?
A. I believe that most of the members of the special task units had not been members of the Allgemeine-SS before. They were recruited on a voluntary basis that obligated themselves to do service voluntarily with the special task unit and therefore do their military service.
Q. No further questions.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN: Dr. Froeschmann for Mummenthey. Witness from your redirect examination one statement you made wasn't quite clear to me. Despite the questions put to you by the President or perhaps because of that question.
Did I understand you to say that in your opinion in the concentration camps there were no enterprises of Office Group C or D?
A I know nothing of enterprises of Office Group C. I know nothing about Office Group C.
Q Therefore, you only know about enterprises of Office Group D?
A. Yes, I said just now I knew nothing about enterprises of Office Group.
Q. But you did not know that Office Group W, to be more precise, Dest, had enterprises of some sort in the concentration camps?
A. Within the concentration camps?
Q. Did you not understand my question? Let me ask you again, did you or did you not know that the W enterprises, the Amtsgruppe W, the Office Group W and more particular Dest the manager of which Nummentey was, had enterprises within the concentration camps?
A. What I knew was that these enterprises were located near concentration camps.
Q. I would like you to give me a precise statement, whether or not you knew that Dest had enterprises in concentration camps? Yes or No?
A. I do not know anything about this.
Q. Thank you very much, no further questions.
BY DR. MAYER:
Q. Mayer for the defendant Keifer. If the Tribunal please, about Exhibit 572 which is Karl's exhibit, I would like to make a brief statement. I wish to correct a misprint which I want to point out in order to be on the safe side. In paragraph 5 reference is made to the Office II-C, in the Main Department Budget and Building. That might lead to a confusion of Office C-II which later was formed in the WVHA and I would therefore like to correct that; II-c is what it should be such as becomes clear from table III. It should be Roman II, small letter c. On page 6 under paragraph 21, it's correctly stated there. It says Roman II-6 but unhappily it isn't a small letter. It should be a lower capital also in that paragraph. I only wish to state there to avoid a confusion with Office C-II to be on the safe side.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: That's on page 5.
DR. MAYER: That was paragraph 21, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to be right A small "C".
MR. ROBBINS: It's a large "C" in the German I see here and counsel is correct. It should be Roman II, small "c" in both places.
JUDGE MUSMANO: Yes. That isn't pertinent to the record.
MR. ROBBINS: The other place is in Paragraph 5. I would just like to clear up point with the witness if I might. I still don't understand what your testimony is. Witness, did you or did you not know that inmates were used in the industries?
A From my own observation I was unable to find out whether inmates were used in the enterprises. I had a certain amount of knowledge from hearsay and nothing else.
MR. ROBBINS: And what was the knowledge? That they were used or they were not used?
A For what purpose they were there should be quite obvious. To do some work.
MR. ROBBINS: But You knew that inmate labor was used in the industries?
A I was in a position to assume that.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions from the defense? If not the court will be in recess and during the recess the marshall will remove this witness from the witness box and bring the next witness to the witness box.
THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal will recess for 15 minutes.
(a recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
WOLFGANG GROSCH, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, raise your right hand and repeat after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE INTERPRETER: Your Honor, this oath should be repeated, please, because the witness did not repeat it correctly.
THE PRESIDENT: Repeat it again, please, and listen carefully.
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: Be seated, please.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Your Honor, Dr. Froeschmann for Mummenthey.
Your Honor, may I submit a request to the Tribunal before I start, or somebody else starts examining the witness? What I have to say refers to a procedure particularly in the defense of Mumenthey. Your Honor, on the 26th of May I submitted a request for nine witnesses for the Defendant Mumenthey, and that on a special form which was prescribed by the Tribunal. On the 23rd of June I have found out that on the part of the Prosecution no position has been taken up with reference to the witnesses which I have applied for, and today I found out that nothing has been done with reference to my request; that my requests have not as yet been submitted to the Tribunal, so that four weeks have actually elapsed without my having succeeded in hearing anything about those witnesses.
I also applied for three or four witnesses to be examined in the jail here, and they are in jail now. A little while ago, or a few days ago it has been decided that the examination of such witnesses has to be announced 72 hours before they are interrogated, and that by using a special form.
THE PRESIDENT: 48 hours.
DR. FROESCHMANN: 72 hours, your Honor, three days. Up to the present moment I have not succeeded in examining these witnesses, although they are in jail here, because the Prosecution did not give me the opportunity to examine these witnesses. Unfortunately, the defense of Mumenthey is almost made impossible for me, and I would appreciate it if this Tribunal would give me its kind support by asking the Prosecution to enable me to examine those witnesses as soon as possible. That is all I have to say to the Tribunal.
MR. ROBBINS: Your Honor, I am sorry but this is the first time that I have heard about this. I don't believe that the requests have reached me as I always act on them immediately. And I never, as I recall it, objected to but two, and I don't think they concerned Mummenthey. Immediately after the session I am sure we can agree on the witnesses. I don't know who they are but I can't imagine that we will have any objections.
THE PRESIDENT: Apparently the applications have got sidetracked. I know they have not come to the Presiding Judge for approval.
Mr. Robbins, you will find out about it after the session today?
MR. ROBBINS: I suggest to Defense Counsel that perhaps they should wait two or three weeks to hear about it; if they don't get an answer within two or three days they should follow it up.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that is shifting-
MR. ROBBINS: It may very well be the fault of the Defense Information; it may be our fault, I don't know. Lots of things get lost in the building.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we do know that the Defense Counsel doesn't lose them, so it is up to somebody else to find out where they are.
All right.
DR. STEIN: May I continue?
THE PRESIDENT: Please do.
BY DR. STEIN: DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q. Witness, I have to draw your attention again to the fact that you are under oath here and that you are only to state facts to this tribunal, facts of which you know for sure. If you don't know those things you can state here for sure, then you should state that explicitly by saying that it is just an assumption on your part, and give us the reasons why you don't know for sure so that the Tribunal is in a position to examine whether or not you are right.
First of all, give me your full name.
A. Wolfgang Grosch.
Q. When were you born?
A. On the 15th of September-
Q. Witness, you gave us two affidavits: one affidavit on the 21st of February, 1947, and an additional affidavit on the 5th of March, 1947. Do you recall that? Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you still remember the contents of these two affidavits?
A. Yes.
Q. In spite of that I shall show you the most important point, and in particular only those points in which I am interested as the Defense counsel for Eirenschmalz. The question is, we have two periods we have to regard here. First of all, the period of time until the end of 1940, and then the period of time from the first of February, 1942; that is after the WVHA was established. You gave the following statements with reference to those periods of time. Point No. 1: Eirenschmalz was in the administrative office SS. You stated here that Eirenschmalz was in charge of the entire construction departments, and that his position was similar to that of Kammler's. First of all, I would like to ask you, witness, how do you know, and how can you gain an insight into the activities of Eirenschmalz at the time?
A. I gained this knowledge from Unter- or Obersturmfuehrer Reidl. That was during the time '38 or '39. He told me those things orally.
Q. However, from your own knowledge you can't tell us anything, can you?
A. No.
Q. You wish to say that you know that from a third party, and only from hearsay?
A. Yes.
Q. Where were you at the time -- '38 or '39?
A. In February of '39 I came to Buchenwald.
Q. Who was your superior?
A. My superior at the time was Unter- or Obersturmfuehrer Reidl.
Q. What did you deal with in there -- and I mean did you ever deal with any administrative tasks that you could gain insight in there?
A. I was in charge as a construction manager. In other words, I was in charge of the construction project of the Third SS Death Head unit.
THE PRESIDENT: Slow, please.
BY DR. STEIN:
Q. What I am interested in mainly is the question if you also dealt with administrative activities.
A. I only dealt with the auditing or checking of accounts and vouchers of the correspondence with Reidl.
Q. Did you have any insight into the activities of Eirenschmalz?
A. No, not personally.
Q. Did you see that by correspondence, etc?
A. No, all I know from Reidl's hearsay, or from Reidl telling me.
Q. Do you know Kammler?
A. Yes.
Q. What do you say with reference to your statement comparing the position Eirenschmalz had between '38 and '39 and that Kammler had?
A. In my affidavit I stated -- and I explicitly stressed the point-that was carried out on a smaller scale, definitely smaller scale, just as Reidl told me at the time.
Q. You furthermore stated that the activity of Eirenschmalz also consisted, among other things, in providing funds for construction purposes of the Death Head units and for the General SS, and that he made them out to the administrative offices.
A. My knowledge on that point also comes from Reidl, and the answers resulted from a question on my part if the funds would be granted for a construction project. He told me at the time Eirenschmalz "is the one who has to approve that."
Q. What kind of construction project was it that you were talking about?
A. It was a garrison for the third SS Death Head Standarte in Thuringia. That was Eirenschmalz's activity in the WVHA.
Q. Were you ever in the WVHA?
A. No.
Q. Well, then, where do you have the knowledge from about the development of business activities in the WVHA?
A. From the organizational chart, and also from discussions and conferences which took place in the WVHA building.
Q. My question was if you were in the WVHA, whereupon you answered that you weren't.
A. What I thought you said was that I worked there.
Q. What were the contacts that you had with the WVHA, and if so, when?
A. I received my orders from the WVHA.
Q. Where were you as of the first of February, 1942.
A. I was in the Russia Middle.
Q. Do you mean the middle sector of Russia?
A. Yes.
Q. I am talking about 1942. In other words, from that period of time when the WVHA was established.
A. At the time I was in the Middle Russia.
Q. And how were those contacts with the WVHA, please?
A. The first personal contact took place in April 1942 when I went to Berlin for a conference.
Q: You told me that you received an organizational chart. Was that the only knowledge which you had concerning the business activities of the WVHA?
A: No.
Q: What further sources did you have?
A: During the conferences which took place in April 1942 I was told by Brigade-Leader Kammler with reference to the business activity of the WVHA.
Q: You just told me that you were in Russia at the time, and now you told me that you were in Berlin in conference with Kammler. Now, how in the world can you make those two things coincide?
A: I told you that in April, 1942, I went to Berlin.
Q: How long were you in Berlin?
A: I was there perhaps for a period of three days.
Q: What were the contents of that conference?
A: I couldn't tell you for sure. Part of the conference in any case dealt with the organizational chart of Amtsgruppe C of the WVHA.
Q: In your affidavit you stated that Eirenschmalz from the spring or from summer 1943, until the end of the year '43, was Kammler's deputy. Now, where did you gain that knowledge?
A: I gained that knowledge from a conference which I had in Berlin, and that was in Autumn 1942 or 1943. I couldn't give you the exact date. In any case, that was prior to that time when Standartenfuehrer Professor Dr. Schleif was Dr. Kammler's deputy. I needed the signature of Dr. Kammler very urgently. He wasn't there, and the Main Departmental chief told me that the only man "who is allowed to sign as deputy of Dr. Kammler" was the chief of office, who was the senior on the list -- at the time Standartenfuehrer Eirenschmalz.
Q: How did you know that deputization lasted until the end of 1943?
A: I know that for sure because at that time I also stated that in my affidavit that I couldn't recall exact dates because I just couldn't remember them.
It was before Standartenfuehrer Schleif came.
MR. ROBBINS: Your Honor, I am sorry but this is the first time that I have heard about this. I don't believe that the requests have reached me as I always act on them immediately. And I never as I recall it, objected to but two, and I don't think they concerned Mummenthey. Immediately after the session I am sure we can agree on the witnesses. I don't know who they are but I can't imagine that we will have any objections.
THE PRESIDENT: Apparently the applications have got sidetracked. I know they have not come to the Presiding Judge for approval.
Mr. Robbins, you will find out about it after the session today?
MR. ROBBINS: I suggest to Defense Counsel that perhaps they should not wait two or three weeks to hear about it; if they don't get an answer within two or three days they should follow it up.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that is shifting -
MR. ROBBINS: It may very well be the fault of the Defense Information; it may be our fault, I don't know. Lots of things get lost in the building.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we do know that the Defense Counsel doesn't lose them, so it is up to somebody else to find out where they are.
Alright.
DR. STEIN: May I continue?
THE PRESIDENT: Please do.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. STEIN:
Q: Witness, I have to draw your attention again to the fact that you are under oath here and that you are only to state facts to this tribunal, facts of which you know for sure. If you don't know those things you can state here for sure, then you should state that explicitly by saying that it is just an assumption on your part, and give us the reasons why you don't know for sure so that the Tribunal is in a position to examine whether or not you are right.
First of all, give me your full name.
A: Wolfgang Grosch.
Q: When were you born?
A: On the 15th of September -
Q: Witness, you gave us two affidavits: one affidavit on the 21st of February, 1947, and an additional affidavit on the 5th of March, 1947. Do you recall that? Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you still remember the contents of those two affidavits?
A: Yes.
Q: In spite of that I shall show you the most important point, and in particular only those points in which I am interested as the Defense counsel for Eirenschmalz. The question is, we have two periods we have to regard here. First of all, the period of time until the end of 1940, and then the period of time from the first of February, 1942, that is after the WVHA was established. You gave the following statements with reference to those periods of time. Point No. 1: Eirenschmalz was in the administrative office SS. You stated here that Eirenschmalz was in charge of the entire construction departments, and that his position was similar to that of Kammler's. First of all, I would like to ask you, witness, how do you know, and how can you gain an insight into the activities of Eirenschamalz at the time?
A: I gained this knowledge from Unter-or Obersturmfuehrer Reidl. That was during the time '38 or '39. He told me those things orally.
Q: However, from your own knowledge you can't tell us anything, can you?
A: No.
Q: You wish to say that you know that from a third party, and only from hearsay?
A: Yes.
Q: Where were you at the time -- '38 or '39?
A: In February of '39 I came to Buchenwald.
Q: Who was your superior?
A: My superior at the time was Unter- or Obersturmfuehrer Reidl.
Q: What did you deal with in there -- and I mean did you ever deal with any administrative tasks that you could gain insight in there?
A: I was in charge as a construction manager. In other words, I was in charge of the construction project of the Third SS Death Head unit.
THE PRESIDENT: Slow, please.
BY DR. STEIN:
Q: What I am interested in mainly is the question if you also dealt with administrative activities.
A: I only dealt with the auditing or checking of accounts and vouchers of the correspondence with Reidl.
Q: Did you have any insight into the activities of Eirenschmalz?
A: No, not personally.
Q: Did you see that by correspondence, etc?
A: No, all I know I know from Reidl's hearsay, or from Reidl telling me.
Q: Do you know Kammler?
A: Yes.
Q: What do you say with reference to your statement comparing the position Eirenschmalz had between '38 and '39 and that Kammler had?
A: In my affidavit I stated -- and I explicitly stressed the point -- that was carried out on a smaller scale, definitely smaller scale, just as Reidl told me at the time.
Q: You furthermore stated that the activity of Eirenschmalz also consisted, among other things, in providing funds for construction purposes of the Death Head units and for the General SS, and that he made them out to the administrative offices.
A: My knowledge on that point also comes from Reidl, and the answers resulted from a question on my part if the funds would be granted for a construction project. He told me at the time Eirenschmalz "is the ore who has to approve tha."
Q: What kind of construction project was it that you were talking about?
A: It was a garrison for the third SS Death Head Standarge in Thuringia. That was Eirenschmalz's activity in the WVHA.
Q: Were you ever in the WVHA?
A: No.
Q: Well, then, where do you have the knowledge from about the development of business activities in the WVHA?
THE PRESIDENT: Could you refer us to the affidavit that you are using in examining this witness? Is it in evidence?
DR. STEIN: Yes, indeed, your Honor. We have two affidavits here. The first affidavit is contained in Document Book No. 3, Document NO-2154, Exhibit No. 52. The other affidavit is contained in Document Book 21 of the Document Book, Document NO-2322, Exhibit 513.
THE PRESIDENT: That can't be in Book I.
DR. STEIN: 21, Your Honor, 21. I just spoke of Books No. 3 and 21. May I continue, your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Please.
Q Witness, do you also know if Eirenschmalz carried out the deputization for Kammler?
A No.
Q However, you stated in your affidavit that Eirenschmalz' deputy signed the mail.
A I can recall one letter which I received which Standartenfuehrer Eirenschmalz had signed.
Q When was that?
A I can't recall the date.
Q I would like to know the approximate date: What year, and what period particularly of the year, what period of time?
A Unfortunately, I can no longer recall that fact.
Q If you received that letter from Eirenschmalz, you should at least know the contents of this letter. Do you know them?
A No.
Q Can you tell us then for sure that was a letter that was signed by Eirenschmalz in his capacity as Kammler's deputy or would you say that might be some other letter which he signed in his normal activities as Chief of Office?
A The only thing I can say here is that was a letter of the Amtsgruppe, one of the letters of the Amtsgruppe.
Q In other words, a letter of the Amtsgruppe, rather than as Deputy of Kammler?
Witness, in your affidavit, unfortunately, you made the following statement -
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, you'll have to give more time between your questions and his answers. The last answer wasn't translated at all.
DR. STEIN: There was no answer, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's have an answer.
Q Witness, do you still recall the question which I just asked you or should I repeat?
A Please do.
Q My question was, when you received Eirenschmalz' letter which you can't recall today in what year it was written and at what month it was, didn't you know if that letter actually was signed by Eirenschmalz as Kammler's deputy or if that letter was simply a letter by Eirenschmalz as Chief of his own Amtsgruppe, or rather, as Chief of his Office C-VI?
A The letter was a letter for the Amtsgruppe. That is the only thing I can recall at the present moment.
Q By that you mean Office C-VI?
A No, I mean Amtsgruppe C.
Q You mean Amtsgruppe C? I see. And what were the contents of that letter?
AAs I told you, I can't recall that.
Q Witness, you further stated that the maintenance for all construction for buildings of the Waffen SS was under Eirenschmalz. You furthermore stated therefore, he also had to take care of the construction and maintenance for the concentration camps and I would like to ask you, Witness, is one to understand that statement to the effect that you assumed from the fact that Eirenschmalz was in charge of the maintenance of buildings for the Waffen SS that he also then had to carry out these matters for the concentration camps?
A Yes.
Q Do you have any reasons to believe that?
A Yes.
MR. ROBBINS: I wonder if we could submit copies of this affidavit to the witness, I think it would be advantageous if he had it in his hand. I don't think the translation always comes through exactly as it is written.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there a German copy available?
INTERPRETER: Your Honor, we have one here. The interpreters have two and I think we can spare one.
THE PRESIDENT: You are still using the first affidavit, 2154, is that the one you are questioning him about?
DR. STEIN: Your Honor, I took both affidavits together and right now I am only limiting the examination of this witness according to the period of time. I took the two periods, first, the activities of Eirenschmalz in the Administrative Office and the second period of time, his activity in the WVHA. Both periods are contained in the witness' affidavits.
Q Witness, do you now have the copies of the two affidavits? You have the two affidavits and now which ones do you have? Will you tell us the date of both of them?
A The one is from the 5th of March and the 20th of February.
Q Yes, that's all right. Now I am talking about that statement which was contained in your affidavit dated the 5th of March, to be exact on page No. 2. I shall read it to you and I shall quote now:
"Since the establishment of the WVHA, the defendant Eirenschmalz amongst other tasks also had the task of approving the funds for all constructions of the Waffen SS and, therefore, also, for all the constructions of the concentration camps." The question which I am addressing to you now is, does that refer, I mean that particular item which you have there, "and therefore also the construction for the the concentration camps."