However, this plant director was a bluff so far as the commercial law was concerned.
Q The function he had, as a matter of fact, as distinguished from his position in law, was to supply the inmates to the individual firms. Is that what I understand you to say?
A If you please, I don't quite get the translation. Will you repeat that question again?
Q I understood you to say then that the function of a commandant as a plant director was simply to see that the plant obtained inmate labor?
A No, for example, in the Heinkel Plant, the same request could be made for inmates. This was for the purposes to have the concentration camp commandants see to it that this plant of DEST, for example, did not lose in production as a result of the fact that the inmate labor was not fairly regulated at intervals. For example, they would receive one-thousand inmates today, fifteen hundred the next day, and then they would receive two thousand on the third day, and on the fourth day, they would not receive any inmates at all. Of course, the plant could not function at all in that manner, and that is exactly what it was.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Mr. Bobbins, may I ask this question. You say that giving the camp commandants a title of plant director was only a bluff insofar as Commercial Law was concerned, but it did allow the camp commandants to maintain an immediate control over the inmates, did it not, even when they were outside of the actual barracks of the concentration camps?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I would not want to be asked for more than I know, because I only audited the Central Administration of the DEST. It would perhaps be better to ask an expert about this. In that case it would be Herr Mummenthey.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: OK.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, will you turn to Document Book 15, and if you will Court No. II, Case No. 4.look at Document Book 14 in front of you.
In Book 15, page 48, of the German text, Exhibit No. 413, Document NO-515, page 37 of the English text. Do you have it?
A On page 48 of the German text.
Q This is a list of the W enterprises which employed inmate labor as drawn up as of 7 March 1944. Do you know the author of this work?
A The list is from the year of 1944 when I had already left the office.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Well, I just ask you if you knew who drew it up.
A No, I don't have the slightest idea.
Q When you were with Amtsgruppe W, did these same firms employ inmate labor that are listed on this document?
A So that we shall have no misunderstanding, I have never been in Amtsgruppe W, but I was an auditor in the enterprises.
I have never employed any people and inmates, with the exception of the very beginning of the DWB. Then I recommended several people to Pohl as employees.
Q Excuse me. Will you go into that more in detail? You said you did employ inmates when you were working with the DWB? What do you mean by that?
A When I was an auditor for the enterprises, I never concluded any employment contracts, with the exception of the very beginning of the DWB. And there it is possible, but I don't know for certain, that on one contract it is stated that it contains my signature with the statement, "This contract is valid only if it has been signed by the business manager, Pohl." Pohl had assigned me to do that, and this was for the purpose of obligating these people until he was able to sign. That may have happened on one or two occasions. There I acted upon a special order. They were-
Q These were contracts between the DWB and what other organization?
A No, we are only concerned with the DWB.
Q What kind of contracts were they? Who were the parties to the contracts? When were they made?
A This could only have happened in the case or one or two of the auditors. That was right in the beginning when no personnel was there at all at that time. At that time I was all by myself with a secretary.
Q You mean they were inmate auditors?
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Mr. Robbins, evidently the translator did not translate your question because the answer is very foreign to it, not Court No. II, Case No. 4.even about the same thing.
I suggest that you rephrase it to see if he can translate so that he can understand it.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, you testified that an one or more occasions you had handled contracts concerning the DWB and the employment of inmate labor. Now I want you to give us some more details about that.
A That is something new to me. I can not remember that at all. Can you give me some point on which to refresh my memory?
Q Just about two or three minutes ago, you said that in some connection -
DR. HEIM: May it please the Tribunal, I believe that we have a misunderstanding here. Mr. Robbins talked about inmates. The witness apparently is referring to concentration camp inmates. In any case, that is how the translation stated it.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Does that clear it up?
AActually I did not conclude any contracts at all, but it is possible--however, I doubt it--that perhaps one or two contracts with auditors who were employed by the DWB. Here I may have temporarily put down my name until the business manager was able to sign himself. That was the way to keep these people obligated for a certain period of time. Otherwise, I never concluded any contracts.
Q What does this have to do with inmate labor, prison labor, concentration camp labor?
A It has nothing to do with it. That is a misunderstanding that arose before.
Q Now, do you have Exhibit 413 before you, NO 515?
A Yes.
Q During the time that you were working as an auditor with Amtsgruppe W, did these same firms employ prison labor, inmate labor, labor from concentration camps?
AAs far as I can recall, besides the Bohemia and besides Golleschau. Perhaps Golleschau was just coming in at that time.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Golleschau was established before you left, before 30 June 1943, wasn't it?
A Yes, but it did not immediately employ inmates, as far as I can recall. An order was issued later on, because it was not intended at all that Golleschau was to employ inmates. Bohemia was not supposed to employ them either.
Q But the other firms listed in this document--NO 515--all employed inmate labor?
A Yes, that is correct. The OSTI was just established at approximately the time when I left. However, the other enterprises were already in operation.
Q Which of these industries listed in this document had as plant directors concentration camp commanders? Is that true in all of these industries?
A Mr. Robbins, it would be more appropriate not to ask me about this, because I can not give you any answer from my own knowledge. I can only make certain assumptions. I assume that all enterprises of the DEST and the German Experimental Institute and the German Equipment Works. However, since I never had the opportunity to see whether the functions of the concentration comp commanders as plant directors were carried out, I can not give you very much information about that.
Q Do you know whether that is true in the case of OSTI?
A I don't know that. I can not tell you that at all.
Q What about the DAW, under W-IV, the German Equipment plants? Do you know about that?
A By virtue of the order of Pohl, I assume that they were amongst that group. That is, where the plant director had something to say in various matters concerning the plant.
Q Can you tell us if the defendant Volk--V-O-L-K--was a member of any of the governing bodies of any of these companies or was Prokurist of any of these companies listed in this document?
A I would say no. I don't think that Volk was a Prokurist with the plant at Golleschau. I don't think that there was any Prokurist at all.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Will you look at the other document in front of you, NO 1039 in Book 14. Was Volk a member of the governing boards or Prokurist of any of the companies listed in this document?
A Yes, Dr. Volk was a Prokurist of the German Economic Enterprise, the DWB. However, he was not a Prokurist in any other company as far as I can recall.
Q Will you tell us what position Volk held in Amtsgruppe W?
A In the DWB, three divisions were maintained. We had taxation bookkeeping, the legal department, and a general administrative department, which was not for the concern, but for the DWB itself. It was under Dr. Volk, who was in charge of the so-called legal department, and the task of this legal department at the time I was there-for at least 90 per cent of the task of that office-was in the field of taxation. The title was Internal Finance Office. That actually was the task of that office during that period of time. Pohl directly gave orders to the directors of the enterprises in the various plants or to the companies direct.
Q Do you know whether Volk ever held the position of an office chief in Amtsgruppe W?
A I have seen that from this document.
Q From what document?
A We have a letter here, according to which Dr. Volk points out to the furniture construction, GMBH, that they had to turn over personnel matters to Ansorge, and here the word "chief of Staff W" is mentioned. As Volk, however, was not replaced later on in that capacity, it does show that this had not been a real appointment.
Q Is that the only documents that you have seen--or that you saw at the time you were working with Amtsgruppe W-
A I have only seen this letter here. I was actually surprised to see it here.
Q And you didn't see any correspondence at any time while you were working with "W" that indicated that Volk was an office chief?
A No, that is quite out of the question.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: We will resume tomorrow morning, Mr. Robbins.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until tomorrow morning at 0930.
(Whereupon, at 1630 hours, 16 July 1947, the Tribunal recessed until 0930 hours, 17 July 1947.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Oswald Pohl, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on July 17, 1947, 0930-0945, Justice Toms, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Take your seats, please.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal No. 2..
God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
HANS HOHBERG - Resumed CROSS-EXAMINATION - Continued BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness, yesterday, I asked you if you know whether Volk held an official position in any of the SS industries and you said that he was a prokurist of the DWB. Would you turn to Document Book XIV, please, to page 13 of the German, page 14 in the English text. It is Document NO-2116, Exhibit 383. Do you have it before you?
A. Yes.
Q. This represents a time subsequent to your leaving your position. Can you tell us what this document is, however?
A. This document is a list, that is to say, of the firms of the DWB concern and gives the names of the business manager and gives the names of the prokurists, and it gives the places where the plants were located.
Q. Will you note the second item on the first page of the document under Public and Dwelling Company. It lists Georg Loerner and Volk as managers. Can you confirm that fact?
A. Yes, I can confirm that. Yesterday's question was different, however. As far as I can recall, you asked me yesterday was Dr. Volk a prokurist. Dr. Volk was only a prokurist on one occasion, in DWB.
Q. And can you confirm the information under the third heading, which I believe is "House and Real Estate?" Can you confirm the fact that Volk was manager of that firm?
A. Yes, he also held that position at my time, as far as I can recall.
Q. And was he a manager or prokurist or did he hold any position in any other company of the S during your time?
A. During my time Volk was the business manager of the Public Utility and Dwelling Company and he was the business manager of the House and Real Estate, G.M.B.H., and, as far as I can recall, he was not a prokurist in any other place, or in any other enterprise.
Q. Or manager or occupying any other position?
A. No, no.
MR. ROBBINS: Then on this, Your Honor, the second item is Gemeinnuetzige, or some such word in German, which means, Public Utility, Dwelling Company.
THE PRESIDENT: Utility, what?
MR. ROBBINS: Public Utility, housing company, or dwelling company.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: What was the second?
THE PRESIDENT: Housing company.
Q. Then the third item is HAGRU, which stands for House and Real Estate Company, is that correct, Witness?
A. Yes, that is, House and Real Estate, G.M.B.H.
Q. Then under W-1, in the DEST, Mummenthey is listed as manager of that enterprise. Can you confirm that fact for your time?
A. Yes, I can confirm that.
Q. Can you also confirm that there were plants located in the various places that are listed in the columns under Pfaff for your time?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. You visited the brick works in Oranienburg, did you not?
A. Yes, I did that within the scope of my auditing work.
Q. Were there other plants in Oranienburg of the DEST?
A. In Oranienburg, we had the so-called Stone processing plant.
Q. That is in addition to the brick yard?
A. Yes, however, when I made my inspection the stone processing plant was not operating yet, but it was only being developed and built up.
Q. When did you first learn that the DEST was using inmate labor?
A. I heard that at a very early time, either at the end of 1940, or early in the course of the auditing 1941. At that time, I paid a brief visit to the DEST at Oranienburg and I walked through the plants there.
Q. And did you visit any of the other DEST plants at any time?
A. No, I didn't see any other of the DEST works.
Q. When you were in Auschwitz, didn't you visit any of the DEST plants?
A. No, in Auschwitz, I went with Dr. May, who was in charge of the wood processing plant. Consequently I only saw the plants of which he was in charge.
Q. You only saw DAW plants?
A. Yes.
Q. And you saw those plants at Auschwitz, Lemberg, and Lublin?
A. Yes.
Q. Any other places?
A. On the occasion of this visit, we also visited Buczowicz. However, inmates were never employed there.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Robbins, may I interrupt a minute? Will you please explain again the difference between a prokurist and a business manager?
THE WITNESS: The business manager is an official person of the company. The prokurist, however, is not. The business manager fundamentally represents the corporation towards the outside. A prokurist is subordinated to the business manager. He normally only works in certain fields.
The extent of his activity, which is of an executive nature, is announced usually in the newspapers. For example, in the I.G. Farben Industry, there were prokurists who were only exclusively allowed to represent the company at Auschwitz; however, they were not allowed to represent the corporation at Leverkusen and Merseburg. A business manager, however, represents the corporation fundamentally. He has no limitation towards the outside. That, of course, does not change the fact that within the internal administration certain fields of tasks are subdivided. However, he is not limited with his actions towards the outside. The prokurist consequently is always the subordinate of a business manager.
THE PRESIDENT: How is the prokurist appointed?
THE WITNESS: A prokurist is appointed by the business manager. While the business manager is either appointed by the stock holders meeting, or, if the charter prescribes it differently, he can be appointed by the supervisory board, should there be one. I am now referring exclusively to the G.M.B.H.
Q. Does the AG also have a prokurist?
A. Yes, the AG also has a prokurist.
Q. And does he act in the same capacity in the AG as he does in the G.M.B.H.?
A. He has approximately the same function. He is also appointed by the Board of Directors, while the Board of Directors in the AG is appointed by the Board of Supervisors, which is a permanent body.
Q. The German term for the word "manager" in the second column is "Geschaeftsfuehrer", is that correct, just for the record?
A. In the case of the G.M.B.H. The Board of Directors has exactly the same functions in the case of the AG.
Q. We were speaking about Mummenthey's position as manager or "Geschaeftsfuehrer" of the DEST. He was also chief of Amtsgruppe I, which was in charge of the DEST. Will you explain his position, the relation between his position as chief of Amt W-I, and manager of the DEST?
A. Mummenthey was not the sole business manager of the DEST. Schondorf was also a business manager in the DEST. Whether Schwarc was a business manager or prokurist I cannot recall at the moment. From the point of view of commercial law, Mummenthey was the primus inter pares. Mummenthey's actual functions extend to the commercial and the financial direction of this company, which included these many enterprises, while the actual plant leadership and the technical administration were carried out by Schondorf. Within the scope of the administration and the management of the whole, the special position of Schondorf played a very important part, because gradually it became customary that Schondorf either on his own initiatiye or according to an agreement with Pohl issued orders to the enterprises of the DEST, which previously were not discussed with the other plant managers, including Mummenthey.
Q. Also under W-I was the porcelain factory, Allach-Munich. Would you say that Mummenthey was the chief or the leader in the control of this plant?
A. I don't know for certain, but I think that Mummenthey had general plenipotentiary powers in order to have any influence according to commercial law. Normally he was not allowed to exert any influence there, because he was not appointed as business manager or a prokurist.
Q. He exercised his influence as chief of Amt W-I, is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct?
Q. And was the same also true of the Bohemia Ceramic Works under Mummenthey?
A. That is not quite the case and I believe that here -- and that is possible according to stockholder law -- he had been delegated by the Board of Supervisors to be working in the Board of Directors. The position of the Board of Directors, according to German stockholders law, is extremely strong. Normally they can act according to their own judgment and can do as they want, up to the moment they are dismissed again by the Board of Supervisors. I know that the relationship of Mummenthey to the Board of Directors was such that when Mummenthey was consulted for decisions these were always reached on a friendly basis. It was never done by any authority he had on the part of the government. The position of Hechtfischer as business manager was much too strong for that.
Q. Mummenthey, you say, was a member of the Vorstand of the Bohemia Ceramic Works?
A. Yes, I believe that he had been delegated to the Board of Directors by the Board of Supervisors. However, I cannot recall that with one hundred percent certainty.
Q. And both the porcelain factory, Allach-Munich, and the Bohemia Ceramic Works employed inmate labor, did they not?
A. The Bohemia must have employed inmates as labor at a later period of time. I only heard about this later on. However, I believe that it was just before I left. The Allach employed inmates from the very beginning. They employed skilled people, or specialists, or artists, and for them, of course, it was a pleasure to carry out this work.
Q. From what camps did the porcelain factory at Allach-Munich draw their inmates?
A. I can only give an assumption. I can only assume they came from Dachau.
Q. Was there a camp at Allach?
A. I don't know whether there was a camp at Allach. I have never been there.
Q. And the DEST drew its inmates from the concentration camp nearest which the plant was located, did it not?
A. Yes, that can be assumed.
Q. And isn't it also true that in a number of cases--- Witness, do you know that in a number of cases concentration camps were erected near stone quarries in order to supply inmate labor to DEST industries?
A. I can't answer this question in this way, because I don't know what was there first. I don't know whether the camp was there first or whether there was the plant to establish a stone plant there. These granite works were already established before I came. I didn't see any there.
Q. It is quite likely that the granite location was there before the concentration camp, isn't it?
A. It is quite possible that the plan was there at the time to employ inmates. Probably otherwise this work would have been established elsewhere.
Q. Was Mummenthey a manager or prokurist or did he hold any other position in any other SS industry than the ones we have just mentioned?
A. I don't want to state this with certainty, but I believe that Mummenthey before was a prokurist with the Public Utility and Housing Company, G.M.B.H. However, I think it is better if you ask Mummenthey about that personally, because he might be able to give you more information about it.
Q. Referring again to Document NO-2116, which is before you, you see under W-II that Bobermin, the defendant Bobermin, is listed as the manager or "Geschaeftsfuehrer" of the Klinker Cement Company. Can you confirm that for your period of time?
A. Yes, I know that.
Q. Did I understand you to say on your direct examination that this industry did not employ concentration camp inmates?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Do you know that from your own knowledge?
A. I have never been there. However, I know it from the necessary documents.
Q. What kind of labor did this cement company use?
A. Have I misunderstood you? Are you now talking about the cement works? I am referring to the Klinker Cement Works. The name is misleading. The Klinker Cement Works never actually produced cement.
Q. I am sorry. I am referring to the Klinker Cement Company. What kind of labor did this industry use?
A. Bobermin should be able to give you very detailed information about that. As far as I can recall from the various documents, and I hardly had an opportunity to see such documents, exclusively free civilian labor was used there.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q These industries were all located in the Government General, is that correct?
A Well, they were located in what formerly was Poland. At the time there were certain territories which were incorporated into the German Reich. They were not part of the Government General.
Q It is your opinion that this industry used free labor?
A Yes.
Q The next industry listed under W-II in this document is the Golleschauer Portland Cement Company. Bobermin is also listed as manager. Could you confirm that fact for your period of time?
A The Golleschauer Portland Cement Factory is an AG, and the German owner here was the director.
Q And who was that?
A The director there was Dr. Bobermin together with another man.
Q And this industry employed concentration camp inmates, did it not?
A This plant must have employed concentration camp labor later on.
Q And from what camp did they draw their inmates?
A Mr. Robbins, that is something which I only heard here.
Q You don't know from your own experience with the WVHA that the Golleschauer Portland Cement Company employed inmates?
A Yes, I know that, but I don't know where they came from. I know now they came from Auschwitz.
Q But they did use inmate labor during your period of time, and you knew that at the time?
A It was approximately at the end. It must have been a short time before I left, because I heard about it.
Q Did Bobermin occupy the position of manager or prokurist, or any other position with any other industry of the SS?
A I don't know whether this was already at my time or not. But in my case afterwards he was with the Prager Bau, and, furthermore, the Court No. II, Case No. 4.Prague Construction Company, and, furthermore, he was business manager of the Eastern German Construction Works GMBH.
However, this company later on was sold to the Reich. I believe it was sold to the Reich Commissioner for the strengthening of the German Folkdown abroad. However, Dr. Bobermin should be able to give you more authentic information about that.
Q Do you know whether any of the property used by W-II, or the plants under W-II were confiscated from citizens of Poland, or Nationals of Poland?
A The state of affairs so far as I can recall, was the following. These enterprises by order and by law, which was in use by the German Reich, these enterprises were confiscated, and they were administered by the so-called Trusteeship for the East. Oberbauergermeister Winkler was in charge of it. I believe that he is located in the same jail here in Nuernberg. After this had already happened, Pohl was appointed under Herr Winkler was a second trustee for the administration of this brick plant. The executive person who worked in this plant under Pohl was Bobermin. In order to organize this in a reasonable form, a so-called plant administration company was established. This was not a lease company, and it was not a company which owned property, but it only was in charge of administering enterprises.
Q Now which of the industries under W-II are you referring to or were you referring to them, all of them, or just part of them?
A That applies to the enterprises which were administered by the so-called Eastern German Construction Material Works. That is the enterprises which later on were sold to the Reich. Several of these enterprises which originally were administered by the Eastern German Construction Material enterprise, were later on leased to the so-called Klinker Cement Company GMBH, which I have already mentioned. I would like to emphasize that I was not an auditor there, and I only know that from hearsay, and it would be better if Dr. Bobermin would be questioned along these lines.
Q You say that this property was confiscated. Do you know Court No. II, Case No. 4.whether the owners were given anything for their property?
Any compensation?
A I don't think so. I consider that out of question. However, you must make a basic difference between confiscation and seizure. Whether these plants were already confiscated, I don't know. However, I don't think that any compensation was paid. I consider that impossible.
Q You have just mentioned the properties which belonged to the Eastern German Construction Works for building materials, the Ostdeutsche Baustoffwerke; doesn't the same also apply to property operated by the Golleschauer Portland Cement Factory, and the Klinker Cement Company, Ltd.?
A The Golleschauer Portland Cement Factory is the result of negotiations between Dr. Bobermin, and a Swiss bank. It was purchased this way, that is to say, it was a regular sale, as the Swiss bank was afraid for its money which was invested here. That is the reason this enterprise was sold. The Golleschauer Portland Cement Factory, as a result of this, had nothing to do with the other enterprises.
Q And what about the Klinker Cement Company, didn't it operate confiscated companies and confiscated properties?
A No, in contract to the Eastern German Building Material Works, GMBH, which practically only administered enterprises on a trusteeship basis, the Klinker Cement Company, GMBH, had a lease on plants. They paid a certain amount of money for that lease, but nothing changed in the ownership status of these plants.
Q You say that you know the information which you have just given us purely from hearsay. What do you mean by that? That you know if from official conversations with people in the offices, and also from seeing the documents in the office, is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct. I even heard it from conversations with Dr. Bobermin, and I heard that from conversation with Dr. Volk, who participated in the negotiations with regard to operations of the Golleschauer Portland Cement Factory, or for example, that I have seen it from letters which I read incidentally. I never had the opportunity Court No. II, Case No. 4.to see the auditing reports of these enterprises.
Q Will you turn to the last page of this document, to page 116, under W-VIII. The first industry listed there -- what is the first industry listed there?
A Is the Convalescent Home, GMBH.
Q And the defendant Klein was the manager of that firm, was he, at your time?
A Mr. Robbins, this plant was established after my activity had already been concluded. I, therefore, can only confirm that from what I saw in the documents. Therefore, my confirmation will have little value as evidence.
Q Very well, in the memorandum that you prepared for Pohl, which is NO-1039, in Book 14, which we discussed yesterday, Exhibit No. 384, on page 16 of the German Text, and page 19 of the English text, there are listed there under W-VIII three different enterprises.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that W-VIII, Mr. Robbins?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, Your Honor, it is on page 10 of the document.
THE PRESIDENT: Our document stops at W-VII.
MR. ROBBINS: I think it is past that place in the document by several pages. It is on page 27 of the English Document Book. No, I am sorry, it is on page 28.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Do you know whether any of these industries listed under W-VIII employed inmate labor?
A In order to avoid making a mistake, Mr. Robbins, that was, for example, the company for the care for German Cultural monuments, and which are the Externsteine-Stiftung, the Koenig Heinrich Memorial Stiftung, and the Convalescent Home, is that correct?
Q That is it.
A Mr. Robbins, I can not give you any answer to that question, because these were not enterprises. But the first one was simply the Externsteine-Stiftung, that is an organization, so to say, a club or Court No. II, Case No. 4.league, it just happens to have the same name "Gesellschaft" or company.
In reality, however, it is a society. It does not have any title according to Commercial Law. The second is a donation. It does not have any legal character either, according to Commercial Law. The third one is a donation also. The fourth one consists of convalescent homes, which apparently, as was shown to me later on, were converted into a company according to the Commercial Law. However, at that time it did not have any legal personality, and I never had the opportunity to take an insight into the business circle of the defendant Klein. I don't know whether and where the inmates were employed there, aside from the knowledge I have gained from the documents here.