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?
A. Moser, whom I met in the Fall of 1944 was only Chief of Office for a very short time. Our relationship was correct, and we did not have any personal contact with each other.
Q. How about your relationship with your collaborators?
A. The relationship between myself and my collaborators, and members of other offices, was only of an official nature, because until August of 1942 I lived in Berlin, and I only stayed very briefly at Oranienburg. This did not change later on when I moved to Oranienburg, and when my parents lived with me there, since they had been bombed out at Cologne.
Q. What was your relationship with the concentration camp commanders whom you knew?
A. The concentration camp commanders, who had a higher rank than I had to some extent a considerable higher rank, I saw them very seldom. I saw them frequently later on when I talked to them, that is, when they came to Oranienburg, otherwise, we did not have very close contacts. I knew the labor allocation officers from the three labor allocation conferences, which had taken place for a year, that is to say, I knew part of them in person, and I knew part of the other camp personnel by name and in part I did not know them at all.
Q. Did you make any observations to the effect that you had a bad reputation with the individual camp commanders, and if so, why?
A . As a matter of fact, it had become known to camp commanders that I had furnished material which brought about the dismissal of camp commander Loritz for which I was called or was given the name and they called me, the commander of Mauthausen called me a first class "Political Indoctrinator, and the other commanders at the time also had that against me after that incident. The Mauthausen commandant's name was Thiereisen.
Q. Did you have any other contacts with circles of the SS?
A. No.
Q. In that time between your entry in the DEST in the year of 1941, and the end of the war, just how much leave did you have?
A. I went on a furlough on one occasion after I had suffered a nervous collapse.
Q. Did you spend part of that furlough in the SS reconvelescent camp at Sudelfeld?
A. Yes.
Q . What experiences did you gain there with regard to the treatment which was given to generals who stayed there, and you as a 1st Lieutenant?
A. The treatment in this reconvelescent camp was given according to rank. The persons of the lowest rank would not get very good food, otherwise, he was always treated very unfriendly. After I returned to Oranienburg I complained about that to General Gluecks. Gluecks told me that he would tell Pohl about it, and later on he said that he had actually found Pohl, and he told me that Pohl would have the man in charge of this reconvelescent home apologize to me. However, I never received it, he never did actually apologize to me.
Q. Witness, in the year 1934 you joined the General SS voluntarily?
A. Yes.
Q. What reasons caused you to enter the SS?
A. At the time I was 18 years old, and when I saw that everybody was rushing into the Party and the Party organizations, I considered it my duty also to enter some organization or other. Through a colleague I was taken along to a meeting of the SS in the summer of 1933, and in this way I became a candidate---I made an application---to enter the SS, and I actually joined in 1934.
Q. What was your rank when you were conscripted into the Reich Labor Service on 1 April 1936?
A. I was a Rottenfuehrer in the SS---a non-commissioned officer.
Q. What military rank could this grade be compared to, if any comparison can be made?
A. Well, if it can be compared at all, I was a private first class or a corporal.
Q. During your membership in the General SS, that is to say, after 1 April 1936, did you have the impression that you were a member of an organization which had been established to commit crimes or which was misused in order to commit crimes?
A. No, I never had that impression.
THE PRESIDENT: We hardly expected any other answer to that question, but we will recess anyway.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess for 15 minutes.
( A recess was taken).
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. BELZER (Counsel for defendant Sommer):
Q. Were you used at all when the so-called Roehm Putsch was foiled in 1934?
A. No.
Q. Where were you in November 1938, in those critical days?
A. I was a soldier in Brandenburg and was in my barracks.
Q. Did you at the time obtain any knowledge of the fact that the SS had participated in the excesses against the Jews in a prominent manner?
A. No. Quite generally it was regarded as a spontaneous demonstration and I did not observe the SS taking part in any particular way.
Q. When, in 1941, in order to adjust your rank to the Wehrmacht rank you were promoted to SS-Untersturmfuehrer, did you have any knowledge of crimes committed by the SS?
A. No.
Q. While you belonged to the Waffen-SS and while you worked in Office D-2, apart from what Gluecks told you about the extermination of Hungarian Jews in Auschwitz, could you even consider it possible that the SS as an organization was used in a systematic way to commit crimes?
A. No.
Q. After Gluecks had imparted this piece of information to you in June 1944, did you have any possibility to resign from the SS?
A. After I had tried to do that for economic reasons and after my request had been turned down, I, as a man who shared this awful secret, could not possibly do so.
Q. What attitude do you take today, as a member of the SS, as regards the things which became known to you within the last two years, the crimes, that is, for which the SS, as an organization, has been made responsible?
A. Unfortunately there cannot be any doubt that orders were issued to exterminate human lives on the biggest scale. These orders which came from higher up, and the fact that the originators of these orders have withdrawn from responsibility by committing suicide.
I regard as the most pusillanimous acts committed, and this also is a betrayal of all the principles which the SS leaders preached themselves.
DR. BELZER: This brings me to the end of my direct examination.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Well, then, as distinguished from some other witnesses, you are convinced that the orders for extermination did come from the higher-up SS heads?
A. Yes.
Q. You are not fooled by the idea that this was just the work of a few unimportant underlings a few scoundrels in the concentration camps who acted on their own responsibility?
A. Mr. President, I said yesterday that it was my belief that in these things a distinction must be made. There cannot be any doubt that the mass extermination of human beings was ordered from above; whereas the things which I heard by witnesses here, all the atrocities described in books, I believe that they were not ordered from above but were tolerated quietly, so to speak.
Q. I think that is a very sensible conclusion. Did you ever hear of "cyclone"?
A. Here in Nuernberg for the first time.
Q. That's the first you ever heard of it?
A. After the beginning of this trial.
Q. Going back briefly to your statement yesterday in justification of forcing the Poles to labor because they were a captured people - do you think the same applies to Hungarian Jews?
A. I have thought about that point very frequently, Your Honor. I said this morning that at that time we were told that they were members of the construction brigades who had been sent to the concentration camps for security reasons. I believe today that it was planned to bring all Jews into the concentration camps and to exterminate them there.
Q. Then you don't justify that as you did the forced labor of the Poles as a conquered people?
A. That is when people are sent to the concentration camps in order to work. If you bring them to the concentration camps to exterminate them, I regard that as a crime.
Q. Well, you said it was all right to bring the civilians from Poland to Germany to work in war industries, because they were a captured people and that was one of the privileges of the victors. You remember saying that?
A. What I said was that I believed that one can expect a vanquished nation to work for you, yes.
Q. Do you feel the same way about the Danes?
A. Your Honor, we were never at war with Denmark.
Q. Do you know that there were many thousands of Danish workers in concentration camps?
A. No.
Q. It's true. How do you feel about the Dutchmen, the Hollanders? Are they the same as the Poles?
A. I believe, Your Honor, that there one should go into figures in order to be able to answer that question truthfully.
Q. No, let's just take one Dutchman, just one. Do you think he should have been compelled to work in a concentration camp because he was captured?
A. Not because he was captured, Your Honor, but because he was in a concentration camp because he had offended against some law and therefore I believe it was possible to use him for work.
Q. Well, the law that he offended against was that he didn't voluntarily work for Germany, the country which had overrun Holland and destroyed it. Do you think for that reason he should be put in a concentration camp?
A. No, Your Honor, nor do I believe it was only for that reason he was taken to a concentration camp.
Q. Well, I think that could be demonstrated to you. What I'm trying to do is to test your theory which you announced yesterday that when a conquering nation succeeds in subduing another that the civilians of the victim can properly and lawfully be compelled to work for the victor. Now that was your proposition, and I want to see how far you will go with it.
A. The usual thing was, Your Honor - at least I never saw anything else or heard about anything else - one did not speak of Germany alone, but of a greater Europe under German leadership in order to form a front against Bolshevism; that was the cover that was given to all these things.
Q. Well, that hasn't much to do with sending a good many thousands of Danes into forced labor in concentration camps, has it?
A. No, if you force them to work, it is a crime.
Q. After seeing the film which you saw and having read the documents with which you're very familiar, and having listened to the witnesses, are you now of the opinion that the inmates of concentration camps were well treated?
A. Your Honor, here an the witness stand a witness testified against me stating that I had committed two murders. He said that he had been an eye witness to them.
I did not commit those murders. I was not in a position to commit them because I was not at the place where they are alleged to have taken place. These witnesses have made their testimony without giving any date. I said yesterday that I believed that these atrocities described by these witnesses were committed under that unfortunate Eicke period previous to 1942. There is no doubt that they actually happened.
Q. That's all I asked you. There is no doubt in your mind that they actually happened?
A. No, only the extent is what I am not clear about.
Q. That's all right. That's consistent. You would have a right to consider that the extent of them has maybe been exaggerated. Did you ever see any children in concentration camps?
A. No, I never saw any children in concentration camps. The youngest inmate I ever saw in a workshop as a carpenter's apprentice was 16 or 17 years of age.
Q. Of course, you remember in the film which you saw, the parade of young boys and girls who were liberated. I think it was from Auschwitz, but from one camp. You remember that?
A. Yes, indeed, I do.
Q. You remember seeing bodies of children, don't you, who had died in concentration camps?
A. Yes, indeed, sir.
Q. How do you suppose those children got there?
A. I am quite unable to explain that.
Q. They weren't criminals, were they?
A. One certainly could not say that.
Q. They weren't there because they refused to work in the factories?
A. Certainly not, Your Honor.
Q. You can't think of any good reason why young children should have been imprisoned in concentration camps, can you?
A. No.
Q. But you know it was done?
A. I saw in the pictures in the film that children were in the concentration camps.
Q. You believe the pictures were true?
A. Yes.
Q. That wasn't enemy propaganda, was it?
A. I don't believe so, Your Honor.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q. Witness, you seem to have such definite information about the operation of the concentration camps that I want to ask you this question. What agency in the WVHA would be responsible for furnishing "cyclone" to camps for extermination purposes?
A. When I was working with the WVHA, Your Honor, I never heard anything about "cyclone" gas. Having studied the documents submitted by the prosecution it seems to me as though that gas had been supplied by the SS Operational Main Office and supplied to Auschwitz.
Q. Didn't it have to be handled by some agency of the WVHA?
A It seems to me that the poison gas was sent only to an agency which could handle things like that, and that was the agency in the SS Operational Main Office.
Q Well the SS Operational Main Office didn't have any channels through which they would send things direct to the concentration camps, did they?
A I know nothing about their channels, your Honor.
Q That's what I am talking about; the channels through which concentration camps were supplied were the different agencies of the WVHA. Now, if one of these agencies had to furnish this material, which one would it be more likely to be?
A It would have been an agency within Office Group D. It could be only the physician there in office D III.
Q Under Lolling's department?
A Yes, your Honor.
BY DR. BELKER:
Q Witness, following the questions put to you by the Presiding Judge, I would like to ask you one question. The President has asked you whether you saw the films where the bodies of concentration camp inmates were shown and where you saw children in concentration camps. My question to you is; "Is it conceivable that these films and pictures which you saw are concerned with a different period of time from the very last days of the concentration camps.
A In my opinion only the very last days of the concentration camps because I never heard anything about the fact that a film about concentration camps had ever been produced.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, these films were taken in the spring of 1945 after the capitulation. They had to be.
Q I only wanted to ask the witness what the connections were at that time between Office Group D, Office D II and the concentration camps on on the whole.
AA connection between Office Group D and the concentration camps hardly existed.