The fact that Maurer told me that the WVHA had nothing to do with these things was reinforced in my opinion when a few weeks later Office Group D had the following experience. I was sitting in Maurer's office and was showing him the mail. Suddenly the telephone rang, and Maurer was asked to go and see Gluecks. He came back after about twenty minutes in a rage and he showed me a teletype letter which Pohl had sent to Himmler. Pohl sent that teletype letter to Himmler from Dachau and sent Gluecks a copy. In that teletype letter Pohl said that an inmate transport from France had reached Dachau and that by the irresponsible leadership of the transport and a member of the Gestapo 480 inmates had suffocated in the wagons and had reached Dachau dead. He wished to protest strictly against this measure and he expected Himmler to have the responsible persons punished severely.
I know that Gluecks was very indignant with Pohl for having sent that teletype letter to Himmler. He said the punishment of those responsible could also have teen achieved if the teletype letter had been sent to Kaltenbrunner, who would then have punished the people responsible. Now Kaltenbrunner would be bawled out by Himmler, and when anything would happen in a concentration camp in the future and Gluecks had to answer for it, Kaltenbrunner would also immediately appeal to Himmler, and everything would come back to him, Gluecks.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: What was the date of this occurrence?
THE WITNESS: As I recall it, Your Honor, that was a few weeks after Gluecks had informed me originally. From a book by Gross, a former inmate of Dachau, I say that it must have been roughly in July of 1944. He mentions the fact briefly that a large transport with dead people arrived there.
Q. (By Dr. Belzer) Witness, by what you have said just now, do you wish to say that it was your hope to save the people from the planned extermination by incorporating them into labor allocation, and What that aim was the purpose of yours and Maurer's efforts?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, in one of your earlier interrogations you mentioned this incident with Gluecks. I would like to ask you, was your testimony, when you were interrogated, caused by a document which was put to you?
A. No.
Q. Were you of the conviction when you made that statement that the prosecution would sooner or later find out about this?
A. No, because the only people who knew about this were Gluecks and Maurer. Gluecks has been dead for sometime, and I did not know whether Maurer was dead or alive when I made that statement. Hoess's statement when he said that he never kept figures of these exterminations was known to me.
Q. Witness, since you had to expect that you would incriminate yourself by what you told about this incident, what made you make that statement in your interrogation?
A. I wanted to tell the truth.
Q. With the exception of this one single case, you had no observations concerning the planned extermination of human beings in concentration camps, particularly Auschwitz, as you said. I would like to ask you, witness, what your explanation is of this.
A. The secrecy rules were extremely severe. I myself was sitting at a distance of several hundred kilometers from Auschwitz and could not see what was going on there. Nobody mentioned anything, ever. I myself, having heard about these things from Gluecks, did not tell anybody about this with the exception of Maurer.
Q. Can you tell us more about the secrecy repaired, generally?
A. There were several grades of secrecy, "confidential", "secret", until the highest point, namely, "top secret". I myself, in my department where labor allocation matters were concerned, could only deal with "confidential" or "secret" matters. Incoming mail, "top secret" or "secret", was sent on by me in a sealed envelope as they came in to Maurer, who would then file them in his safe.
Q. Did you know Fuehrer Order No. 1, as it was called?
A. Yes, that was affixed on all the walls in all the offices of Office Group D.
Q. Can you tell us from your memory the contents of that order?
THE PRESIDENT: If he cannot, I can. We have heard it dozens of times, counsel. We know it by heart.
DR. BELZER: I withdraw my questions.
Q. (By Dr. Belzer) In connection with your knowledge about the extermination of the Hungarian Jews, you said that it was your opinion that by incorporating inmates into the labor program you would be able to save these inmates. My question is, are you today of the opinion that through labor allocation of inmates, particularly by the activity of D-II, not only in the case of Hungarian Jews but quite generally, a considerable number of concentration camp inmates were saved?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you any indications that other people, particularly concentration camp inmates themselves, share that opinion and would be prepared to say so today?
A. Yes, and I would ask the Court to be allowed once more to read from the books, specifically from the book "Nacht und Nebel" (Night and Fog), a passage which refers to that.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Weissruettel, a former inmate, says on page 117 of that book:
"When, towards the end of 1942, it became necessary in the course of total war to establish an SS Armament Industry, changes became noticeable in the way inmates were being treated. Now, as people were killed at the fronts and bombing warfare paralyzed one armament plant after the other, it became necessary to save all labor that could be saved, no matter whether they were skilled workers or nonskilled workers."
"In that period of time the various improvements occurred which helped to the effect that after 1943 the position of the inmates became somewhat more bearable."
Then, on page 121, he says:
"Labor allocation was established... When that agency was established, the mismanagement which had made life very difficult for thousands of inmates up until then--and in many cases cost their lives, disappeared. Compulsion to do work meant that everybody, no matter who they were and without taking into consideration what he had been doing in civilian life, was now being used as an unskilled worker; but now a special department saw to it that each man would be used where he could be used best. On the basis of a large card-index every inmate could be used wherever he could do his best on the basis of his professional skill. As the enterprises grew and grew, and needed skilled workers to an extent which could no longer be satisfied, it was no longer possible now that an electrical engineer would do digging work. Another advantage also was introduced to us as far as inmates were concerned because medical care was no longer exclusively in the hands of SS doctors and trained nurses, but in the hands of inmate doctors; that is, experts. The mortality among the inmates, which for years had reached sensational heights, now became lower. There was an average of only three deaths per day, and we no longer were afraid to fall ill--"
THE PRESIDENT: Well, is it your conclusion, witness; is it your conclusion that from the end of 1942 on--forward--conditions in Court No. II, Case No. 4.concentration camps continually got better?
WITNESS: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you see the picture of the conditions in 1945, in the spring?
WITNESS: Yes, I did. I saw that film, and I must say that I am unable to explain the conditions--especially in the case of Belson. The position was that at the time enormous camps of the army and navy were evacuated near Zelle of all food that they contained. Every troop unit of the army could take with it whatever they had transportation for. The civilian population took food home by boxes and by wagons. It is completely incomprehensible to me why the camp commandant did not avail himself of that possibility.
As I said yesterday, I myself, roughly on 28 March 1945, at eleven in the morning for about ten minutes, stayed in Belson to talk to Kramer. I asked him whether he had any news or information which I could take along to Gluecks, and he said no. He said that he was waiting for the Allied Army troops who were, he said, a few kilometers from Zelle with an armored spearhead; and he wanted to hand over the camp to them.
I think it is entirely impossible that this vast mountain of corpses--that the camp commandant Kramer could think that he could emerge unscathed from being taken prisoner. The camp was then overrun in April of 1945 and handed over to the Allies.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I merely questioned you about your position, your claim, that things got progressively better from the end of 1942--and you are reading from the book which you offer as the authority for that statement. If they got progressively better from 1942 on, I wonder how you reconcile that with what you saw in the spring of 1945?
WITNESS: I believe, Your Honor, that the events and conditions in 1945 were caused by the general emergency in Germany.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't doubt that. I don't dispute it. But I Court No. II, Case No. 4.want to know whether you think that they were an improvement over the conditions in 1942?
WITNESS: No, Your Honor; certainly not.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course not. Well, that is all.
BY DR. BELZER:
Q Witness, your statements referred only to the effect which labor allocation had on life in the camps--not the question of feeding them?
A Yes.
Q And who was responsible for food--or let me put it another way. Was it possible for the food supplies for concentration camps in the last months of the war to be carried out in a manner which excluded deficiencies? And if not, why not?
A I knew nothing about that at the time, but having seen the films about the camps I must assume that the air-raids on railroads and so forth resulted in a very severe emergency. I do not know how much Gluecks or Pohl knew about this. There cannot be any doubt that it did exist.
Q Did Office D-2 have the opportunity to help at all by allocating inmates to do some work?
A When the Russian armies advanced and, when in January, 1945, on the basis of the shortages of raw material the Speer Ministry drew up the so-called Fuehrer Emergency Program--that is, a large number of enterprises were closed down and only the most urgent commodities were produced--any regulation of labor could no longer be maintained, that is, as it existed after February, 1945. We were hardly given the necessary lists and surveys or any other files from concentration camps because labor allocation became less and less as time went on.
Q Mismanagement and bad conditions in the last months of the war in concentration camps were not caused, in other words, by such measures as Office Group D or Office D-2 did, but were simply connected with the military situation?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
AAs far as I can judge it, yes.
Q Witness, now I would like to give you an opportunity, briefly, to speak about a few documents submitted by the Prosecution-perhaps it might be more appropriate to do this after lunch.
THE PRESIDENT: I was just waiting for that. No will recess until two o'clock instead of a quarter to two.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess until two o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1400 hours, 1 July 1947.)
KARL SOMMER - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. BELZER:
Q Witness, yesterday you told us that some of the office chiefs had the general permission to enter concentration camps. I believe that I will be able to shorten the cross-examination considerably if I ask you to tell us now what office chiefs had this particular permission?
A The office chiefs over the former inspectorate of the concentration camps which liter on became Amtsgruppe D in the WVHA had that remission.
Q Before the recess, I told you that I would give you the opportunity to briefly give us your opinion with regard to some documents presented by the prosecution, as far as we have not yet dealt with them in the course of your testimony. First of all, I want to ask you which out of the 600 submitted by the prosecution up to now are provided with your signature?
A With the exception of my two affidavits, only document NO-789 which is in Document Book 16 as Exhibit 434. However, this document has nothing to do with the labor allocation of inmates.
Q From your activity in office D-11, not a single document which you have signed exists. Is that correct?
A No.
Q How many documents are provided with your dictation mark?
A Two documents. That is Document NO-1935, Exhibit 129 in Document Book 5 on page 68 of the German text and page 53 of the English. It is a copy of a teletype from the commander off the concentration camp Auschwitz to the commander of the concentration camp Buchenwald and in there he requests a certain opinion. From the letter of the camp commander of Auschwitz it becomes evident that the camp commander at Buchenwald violated the existing regulations about the procurement of inmates. He, therefore, is requested to give his opinion on that subject because Maurer did not want to let this matter go on without taking any action.
The other document is Document NO-597, Exhibit 360 in Document Book 13. It is a file plan which I compiled for D-II which, with a letter from the 9th of June, 1944, was sent to the camp headquarters by office D-II in agreement with their plans.
Q The enclosure to this file plan bears the classification of "top secret." Why was this file plan submitted as a top secret matter?
A The file plan showed where arament industries were located in German Therefore, the enemy intelligence services would have been able to see where the armament plants were located and that is why this whole matter went as "top secret".
Q Were all the files which are listed in the file plan actually filed?
A No, The file plan is a general file plan which is organized according to the organizational chart of the WVHA or according to possibilities which might happen. Within this framework, as far as files accumulate all these files were listed. The file plan therefore does not give us an absolutely exact picture of the conditions.
Q On page six of this file plan under the file designation 14 (XL) D-II 03, the inmate allocation for camp economic plants and the camp operation, there have been listed under 0325 and 0334 and the following camps are listed there: Lublin, men and women: Plassow, men and women: Riga, men and women; Kauen, men and women; Waiwara, men and women. Just how does this act coincide with your former statement that the concentration camps outside of the Reich territory were not subordinated to the office Group D?
I have already previously stated that the concentration camps in the occupied Eastern territories were subordinated to the SS economist with the Higher SS and Police Leader. This also becomes evident from Document NO-2128 which has been introduced by the prosecution. It is Exhibit 331 in Document Book 12. For the concentration camps in the territory of the Higher SS Police Leader for the Baltic Countries this applies at all times. For the concentration camps in the General Government this applies to the camps Plassow and Warsaw at all times, while Lublin for a certain period of time was subordinated to Office Group D. However, conditions there were always kept somewhat unclear since as far as subordination was concerned, they were under Globocnik. The economic experts were notified first by us of official orders; and the economists had to inform us of orders which they issued. Furthermore, they had to notify us of approvals or disapprovals of labor allocation matters so that we could pass on the appropriate information to Pohl. These files had to be kept somewhere and therefore they are listed in this file plan.
Q. Witness, on Page 41 of the file plan under the heading Concentration Camp Dachau and under the file mark 14 KL, D II, 15/5, inmate allocations for SS agencies are listed: 15/5 c, Lebensborn Registered Society at Munich; 15/5 n, Malaria Station, Prof. Dr. Schilling; 15/5 r, Production of Lehlachters Polygal. What did the Office D II have to do with these matters?
A. The Lebensborn Society by order of Himmler received Jehovah's Witnesses who were inmates in concentration camps, and they were used as servants in his SS homes. As to the military production of polygal, for a certain period of time some inmates -- I believe there were four or five -- were sent to Schlacters where they worked for while. The file about the Malaria Station, Prof. Dr. Schilling, in my opinion contained a complaint which I have already referred to. That was a complaint which I have already referred to. That was a complaint by the plant manager of the German production plants because skilled workers were furnished to Dr. Schilling and thereby removed from production in the plants.
Q. On the one but last page of the file plan - Page 50 -the following files are listed. Under Paragraph 22, Food, Clothing, and Accommodations. Under Paragraph 23, Transfers and Transport of Inmates. Under Paragraph 24, Releases of Inmates. Under Paragraph 27, Guarding and Camp Security. Under Paragraph 28, Reports from Protective Custody Camps. And under Paragraph 29, Establishment Extension of the Concentration Camps. Would you please tell us whether these files were actually kept and just exactly what these files dealt with?
A. Document NO-597 consists of two parts. The first part is the file plan which I compiled and which was distributed to the camps in June 1944. This file is on page 45 of the German Document Book. On Page 46 there is another file plan which was compiled in Office D II in October 1942. However, I did not compile it personally. In this file plan apparently some files had been included which came from the time when the Main Department l/5 still existed. These are the files which you have just referred to. In the file plan which I compiled these files are not mentioned anymore. I believe that I can recall that these files were, since we were not interested in them, turned over to the offices which were competent in these matters.
Q. Therefore, these files actually were not kept in your office when you were working there?
A. No. I don't know whether we kept them at that time.
Q. On the last page of the second file plan, that is, on page 51, under Paragraph 33, the following is stated. "Secret, Utilization of Hair." Just what was included in this file and why was this file classified as secret?
A. I have already stated that I did not compile this file plan, and I can only assume that in this file which was classified as secret, something is contained about the production of felt for the Navy. In Document 3680-PS, Exhibit 152 in Document Book 5, which was presented by the Prosecution, it becomes evident that apparently it was intended to establish a felt plant in one of the concentration camps.
I assume that the negotiations about the production rates which were carried out at that time were included in these files. In Germany it was quite customary to collect hair in order to produce felt. Whenever hair was cut, in a barber-shop, it had to be turned over to the Scrapp-material-agencies so that it could be used again.
Q. In spite of the closest examination of the file plan, I have been unable to discover any files for the questions: Special Treatment, Transfer of Inmates for Experimental Purposes, Medical Experiments in the Concentration Camps, or top secret matters, cases of death, and executions. In your opinion what does this fact prove?
A. I have already stated that such matters were not covered in Office D II and that Office D II did not have any official contact with these matters. Therefore, such files could not have accumulated in my office.
Q. The file plan, as far as I am able to see, does not contain any files either which refer to the official contact between Office D II and one or the other offices of Office Group D. What does this fact show with regard to the official contacts between the individual offices of Office Group D?
A. As I have already said before, unfortunately no contact existed between the individual offices. Every office carried out its own work for itself. No office could give any official instructions to and her office. It could only submit important matters to the Chief of the Amtsgruppe, and the Chief of the Amtsgruppe could then make an appropriate decision and issue a corresponding order.
Q. Document NO-1937, Exhibit 132, was submitted by the Prosecution in Document Book 5 on Page 72, Page 57 of the English text; and in Document Book 13 on Page 12 of the English text, and 11 of the German. The Prosecution has submitted a teletype from the camp commander of Auschwitz Liebehenschel to the camp commander of Buchenwald. In the index of Document Book 13 it is stated in this connection:
"Dictation mark by Sommer." Since this document is a letter by the camp commander of Auschwitz, this remark in the index could be interpreted to mean that you yourself had been at Auschwitz at the time this letter was sent off and as if you yourself had belonged to the camp Kommandantur at Auschwitz. What have you to say with regard to this letter and with regard to the remark in the index of Document Book 13?
A. The document is not provided with my dictation mark. Only in the "reference " is it stated that a decree had been issued by the WVHA which had the file mark D II /1, 23 SO/f. Therefore, this letter only refers to a previous letter.
Q. When Document L 7 was introduced, Exhibit 186, Document Book vII, on Page 12 of the German text and Page 10 of the English text, the prosecution, Mr. McHaney, made the following statement, and I quote from the German transcript on Page 264. "Document L 7 on Page 10, Prosecution Exhibit 186, is an order which was issued by the Chief of Office D II, Maurer. It bears the date of the 4th of December 1942, and it deals with the furnishing of inmates to the camp physician for experimental purposes. It states that in the daily survey they were listed and that they were to be included in that survey as "persons for experimental subjects" and "nurses" for these experimental subjects. This shows the participation of Office D II and the transfer of inmates to the concentration camps.
Judge Phillips asked, "what knowledge," and Mr. McHaney answered, "most persons in Amtsgruppe D and in particular the persons that worked in office D." I now ask you, do the statements which the prosecution has made here agree with the actual contents of the document and are conclusions which the prosecution has drawn from that document correct?
A No, as I have already testified I knew of the fact that experiments were being carried out in the concentration camps. I only know from Dachau what experiments were concerned. There they dealt with malaria experiments. In the index of the document book it is stated that the WVHA gave the order to Natzweiler that the inmates on whom experiments were carried out should be listed in the daily survey. However, I can not see anything about that in the document. The inmates were only listed by numbers in the surveys about the allocation of labor. The Office D-II did not have the slightest idea what kind of experiments were being carried out here. Below it is stated the labor allocation officers are to be notified accordingly. If the labor allocation leaders had known what experiments were being carried out or if they had been responsible for the furnishing of inmates for these experiments then it would not have been necessary to notify them accordingly. In this connection I also wish to refer to the diary which the prosecution has introduced in the case against the former director of the Ahnenerbe institute who is now a defendant in the medical case, Trib. # 1. This diary goes very much into detail. Often we read the phrase, "discussion with Lolling." about the furnishing of inmates for experimental purposes. Here it is not mentioned a single time that any conferences were carried out with Maurer of D-II or with myself on that matter.
Q In Document No. 1278 which was introduced by the prosecution as Exhibit 440 in Document Book 16, page 61 of the German text and page 60 of the English, you are mentioned in connection with a trip to BergenBelsen. Just what happened at the time?
A In the compensation camp Herzogenbusch was located a diamond cutting plant where industrial diamonds, which were urgently required by the wire industry, were produced.
In anticipation of the coming invasion this diamond cutting plant had been evacuated from Herzogenbusch and transferred to Bergen-Belsen. Two representatives of the Office D-1 were to establish the plant at Bergen-Belsen and they were to begin work with the workers who already were located at Belsen at that time, ready to discuss the matter with them and ready to look for appropriate building sites. In order to facilitate the discussions between the camp commander and representative of W-I. I was sent to Belsen and at the time I was ordered to discuss with the commander of the troop training center at Belsen who was responsible for the vacancy of the prisoners of war camp which was located next to the concentration camp and which was empty. I have already described the details of my trip yesterday in detail.
Q As Document No. 2327, Exhibit 75, in Document Book III, on page 121 of the German text and on page 109 of the English version, the prosecution has introduced an affidavit by the last commander of the Buchenwald concentration camp, Hermann Pister. In this affidavit Pister alleges that he had seen you several times during the conferences of the commanders. What do you have to say about that?
A I have already testified here that I have never attended any meeting of the commanders. That would not even have been possible because fundamentally I had the order to be present in the office whenever Maurer was absent just in case Pohl should call up. Somebody should answer the phone and provide him with the necessary information. Of course that was always the case in the conferences of the commanders.
Q How do you explain the statement by Pister?
A Pister may have seen me in the office of Maurer on the occasion of these conferences. He was probably confused on that point.
Q It was outside of the conferences of the commanders?
A Yes.
Q Will you please tell us how briefly about your affidavit which is Exhibit 13 in Document Book I of the 22 January 1947; it is on page 78 of the German Book and page 64 of the English text and will you also make some corrections if that should be necessary.
A When I signed this affidavit I had been in confinement for 21 months and of that I had been in Nurnberg five months. I frequently had been interrogated under oath and therefore I had gained the impression that I was in Nurnberg as a witness. I was told that when I was transported away from the internment camp 7. After several weeks of solitary confinement I was put into the witness wing of the prison at Nurnberg. When the indictment was handed to me on the 13th of January 1947 I was rather upset. On the 22nd of January I was then placed before an interrogator who told me that from my various interrogations he had compiled an affidavit which he wanted to submit to me for my signature. Up to that time I had never talked to any defense counsel. In the room of the interrogator a defense counsel introduced himself to me and he told me that he had been appointed to advise me in legal matters. I was told expressly that I was to give this affidavit voluntarily; that I was not giving it under duress and that I could make corrections. However, I was also told that this was a summary of several other interrogatories. The presence of a German defense counsel gave me confidence. I then carefully read over the affidavits and I requested that I could make some additions on the first page so that everything would be explained more clearly so that the affidavit, the way it was drawn up, would not create any false impressions. The interrogator then told me that was a matter which I could discuss in the witness stand and the German defense counsel did not object to that and I renounced. I then signed the affidavit and after I had returned to my cell I sent a correction of this affidavit to the interrogator. However, no consideration was given to these corrections in the affidavit. The correction referred to the subordinational conditions in the concentration camps in the East and the occupied terri tories under the WVHA and I have already described that in detail before.
I then would like to refer briefly to paragraph 4 of this affidavit where I mentioned construction matters of the SS economic plans, where so-called black market work-shops existed. I would like to say that this was probably the case up to 1942. However, later on this condition changed. I only want to tell the period of time here. My statements about the activities of the co-defendant Eirenschmalz are assumptions which I had on the basis of the organizational chart; I stated that in the last sentence there and I consider this quite natural. On page 5 I talked about the concentration camp of Auschwitz and the construction measures which were carried out there. I was asked who constructed the crematoria in Auschwitz. I replied in my opinion only Office Group B could have done that. In the affidavit the following is stated: "I know that for sure." I said at the time, "I don't know that exactly." That is my firm conviction." The interrogator told me, "well, that is the same thing." The German lawyer did not object to that and I do not make any alteration in it. Those are the corrections which I wanted to make regarding this affidavit.
Q. Witness, can you tell us briefly when and where you met the individual co-defendants and what contact you had with them?
THE COURT: On your affidavit on page 5, the last phrase that you spoke about, you said that the crematoria in Auschwitz was constructed by Amtsgruppe-C.
A. Yes, Your Honor, that is correct.
Q. Was that true? You said that you were not sure, although the affidavit says that you know that for certain. Now you say that you do not know that for certain?
A. During the interrogation, and when the affidavit was presented, I stated that I was firmly convinced that I could not imagine who else could have constructed these crematoria.
Q. Do you want to change the statement now? Are you still firmly convinced that they were built by Amtsgruppe-C?
A. No, Your Honor, even now I am still convinced that they were constructed by C. I do not know who else could have constructed them. However, I do not know it for certain.
Q. All right, but your statement that they were constructed by Amtsgruppe-C is still the best information that you have?
A. Yes, Your Honor.
Q. And to this day you can not think of any one else who could have constructed them?
A. I don't know who else could have built them.
Q. So you haven't changed your mind about it?
A. No, Your Honor.
BY DR. BELZER:
Q. I would like to repeat my request, will you briefly tell us when and where you met each individual co-defendant, and what contents you had with them?
A. I have already described here when I met co-defendant Pohl for the first time. That was the occasion of a conference with re gard to Sauergweig.
I have seen Pohl several times at Oranienburg whenever he visited the agency. I remember occasions when he used to talk to me a few times. However, I had never seen him in a labor allocation matter with Deputy Maurer, and I never had any conference with him with regard to allocation of labor. So far as I can remember, I have seen the co-defendant Frank on two occasions. I saw him at one time at Oranienburg when he apparently had a car accident near Oranienburg, and he was looking for help, and I saw him a second time in the WVHA, that was when I had a social evening. However, I never talked to Frank, and I never had any official contacts with him. I saw the co-defendant Loerner of the first time in January 1944 when I took my leave at Berghause Sudelfeld, and Loerner also stayed there for a few days.
Q. Is that Loerner, Hans?
A. No, that is Loerner, Georg. I never had any official contact with him. I met Fanslau for the first time on 20 April 1944, when after having been promoted and I reported to Pohl. I met Hans Loerner for the first time in the Fall of 1943 when I brought Maurers mail to him at the Berghaus Swdelfeld. I saw him there because he too was spending his leave there. I can not recall of ever having seen Vogt, Tshcentscher, Kiefer, Hohberg, Bobermin and Klein. Scheide I saw in the Fall of 1944. That is, I went to see him at that time when I was still at home in order to move furniture. At that time I talked to him for approximately ten minutes. I met Eirenschmalz at Oranienburg when he was on his way from the agency to the Fuehrer Home and when I returned hone from my agency I had occasion to see him quite often, but we did not have any official contact. I knew Pook as a leading dentist in my agency. I saw Baier on one occasion in the antie-room of Pohl when I gave him a survey about labor allocation. I want to say that when I brought these surveys to Pohl, about two or three officers were waiting there in the ante-room, and I introduced myself to them.
One of them was Gaier. Mumenthey for a certain length of time was in my office when I worked at the DEST, and later on I used to see him frequently at Oranienberg.
Q. And the defendant Volk?
A. Yes, I know Volk also from my activity in the DEST. Later on I did not see him any more but I knew he was a personal consultant of Pohl's. However, I did not have any official or private contacts with him.
Q. What was your personal relationship to the Chief Amtsgruppe-D, Amtsgruppenfuehrer Gluecks?
A. Gluecks was a General, and I was a first Lieutenant, later on a Captain. Of course, there is a difference in rank which settled our official contacts. I only had contacts with Gluecks in the course of the year of 1943, because as we used to say it was very hard for him to get used to new faces around the place. I did not have any personal contact with Gluecks.
Q. Please tell the Tribunal briefly about your personal relationship to the Chief of your office, Standartenfuehrer Maurer?
A I have already described to the Tribunal how I met Maurer in March 1942. At the time I had an impression that Maurer was a man of strong will, and that he was very correct in his actions. Maurer demanded from efficiency and willingness to work. In May 1942 the Agency had approximately twenty men, although the work increased constantly. The relationship between Maurer and myself was always correct in an official aspect, and Maurer was very well meaning as a superior, and he was easy to get along with, as long as we did our work, he could become extremely unpleasant if we ever made a mistake.
Q. What was your relationship to Moser, the successor of Maurer?