Then after the collapse in 1945 I became aware of the horrid, significance of the word "Treblinka". I always asked myself how it was possible that when I inspected it I did not find the slightest indication and my attention was drawn to nothing peculiar at all. But from this document, Exhibit 467, I believe I can give the answer in this trial. This document maintains that here had been two camps in Trelinka, Treblinka A and Treblinka B. Treblinka B is named in this document as the camp where the extermination was carried out. The commandant of the camp is also named, Captain Wirth. I had nothing to do with that commandant. The commandant I talked to was called Van Eupen and I remember that name because it was a very rare name.
Q. In other words, when you made this brief inspection of Treblinka you saw nothing of the examination measures, heard anything about them, or made observations?
A. I saw nothing. I had heard nothing which should have made me take notice, nor did I know anything about the existence of the second camp, nor did I hear anything about it later on.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: What was the date of this visit, Dr. Froeschmann; when did he go?
Q. (By Dr. Froeschmann) What was the date when you were there?
A. It was about in the spring of 1943. Yes, I remember it.
Q. Spring, wasn't it?
A. Yes, quite, in the spring of 1943.
Q. Now, let us talk about the last point in this connection. That is the plant at Lins. What can you tell us briefly about that?
A. Many things have been said about that before, and what the documents contain about that as far as contracts or drafted contracts are concerned, they were never carried out. None of these contracts was ever signed. Only a testing installation was established at Lins.
DR. FROESCHMANN: If your Honor please, I might remark in this connection, as far as every single plant is concerned I have obtained affidavits by works managers and inmates. I could, without exaggeration, have produced twelve inmates before this trial who would have testified all in the same way as Bickel did, but, of course, I wanted to limit myself. As soon as my document books will be available I shall submit these affidavits to the Court, and from these affidavits the Court will be able to reach detailed conclusions.
It is a repetition of what the Witness Bickel has said about the plants as well as about the character of Mummenthey.
Q. (By Dr. Froeschmann) Now, Herr Mummenthey, two brief final words about the enterprises of Bohemia and Allach. You can tell us in two or three sentences about that. What were these plants?
A. I think it is important to point out that the DEST had a number of works which did not use inmates. This was the stone quarry of Beneschau near Prague and the Southern Styrian Granite Works of Marburg on the Drau. Both of these did not use inmates.
Q. What about Bohemia and Allach?
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q. From what source did the labor come that was employed in those two plants that you just mentioned that did not employ inmates?
A. They were the same workers, if your Honor please, who had worked in these enterprises previously before they had been taken over by the DEST; free workers, in other words, who were residents of that area.
Q. You are certain that they weren't taken from other countries such as France and Poland, Holland and Belgium and imported there, or deported against their will and made to work in these plants, you are certain of that, are you?
A. No, I know from my own knowledge, your Honor, and my own inspection they were people who had lived there, resided there, and who had their families there.
Q. And were free workers in every sense of the word?
A. In every sense of the word.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. There were just two plants that had labor of that kind?
A. As I remember, yes, there were only two.
Q. Will you give me the names of them again?
A. Beneschau near Prague. That plant consisted of about five or six enterprises which were located around Beneschau, and the Southern Styrian Granite Works in Marburg on the Drau, again about five or six enterprises.
THE PRESIDENT: Give me that name, Marburg.
THE INTERPRETER: Marburg, Sir, M-a-r-b-u-r-g, and then the Drau, D-r-a-u, the river.
THE PRESIDENT: The word before Marburg.
THE INTERPRETER: The Southern Styrian.
THE PRESIDENT: That is it.
THE INTERPRETER: S-t-y-r-i-a-n, sir.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q. Now, Herr Mummenthey, what about Bohemia and Allach, very briefly.
A. In the case of Allach we had an enterprise founded by the personal staff of the Reichsfuehrer-SS in about 1934 or 1935. The objects of that plant were not commercial ones but aesthetical and artistic ones. The founders quite obviously aimed at something similar to the official porcelain manufacturing plants at Berlin or Meissen. For that reason prominent artists were put under contact. No commercial porcelain was produced, only artistic porcelain. Allach was not a big enterprise which becomes clear from the term "manufacturing plant". In order to broaden production there Allach purchased from the Bohemia Union Bank in Prague about ninety percent of the shares of the Bohemia. Those shares were transferred to DWB later on, and the whole transaction took place before my time.
Q. Herr Mummenthey, what about Bohemia? Just a moment, was that the most important porcelain factory of Czechoslavakia?
A. Dr. Froeschmann, may I just say something briefly about Allach first? Allach used inmates only after 1941, started, with one or two. In the late autumn of 1941 there were about forty inmates. This becomes clear from the monthly report which is contained as Exhibit 436 in the documents of the Prosecution. The biggest figure ever employed by Allach in 1943 was one hundred.
Q. Exhibit 436 is Document No. 1049, and it is in Document Book XVI on Page 39 of the English text. Please continue.
A. The same document also shows, by the way, that around that period of time in the gravel pit of Auschwitz no inmates were employed at all. Bohemia was one of the foremost porcelain factories in the world. It had been built in 1924, and having gone bankrupt several times it was transformed into porcelain factory. It was a spinning plant first. Apart from commercial crockery it also produced artistic porcelain, and in every respect it was a highly up-to-date factory. In Prague, as well as Bratislava, Bohemia had two extremely smart sales shops, which, as I saw myself, became the meeting point of the diplomatic corps in Prague. Bohemia was not part of the DEST but it was for purely organizational reasons part of Group W-I.
Q. Did it employ inmates?
A. Only as the war went on when labor became scarce, unwillingly the choice was reached to employ inmates. From Exhibit 436 which I had mentioned just now it becomes clear that In May, 1942, no inmates were working there yet. From Exhibit 442, the monthly report of August, 1943, it becomes clear that about 245 inmates were working.
May I interpolate something here? When the documents were submitted Mr. Robbins stressed that Bohemia had used 5245 inmates. As he couldn't find the figure in this document he thought it must be in another document, but perhaps I will have the Prosecution's permission to correct that small mistake. Actually there were only 245 inmates. The error can be explained by the fact that under Figure 5 in the report the figure named, namely 245, was by mistake put behind the figure 5, which led quite probably to the wrong statement in the index of Document Book XVI.
Q. Exhibit 442 is Document NO-1002 and is contained in Book XVI on Page 64 of the English text. Now, we have dealt with Bohemia, haven't we?
A. I should like to add briefly that the description given by witnesses Kruse and Dr. Engler about how Bohemia was purchased was entirely incorrect. The witnesses were in a state where their memory perhaps confused a number of issues.
Court No. II, Case No. IV.
Q. Herr Mumenthey, I want to ask you very briefly about the Osti. Is it true what the various witness have told us here, namely, that the DEST had no relations to the Osti, and that when the auditor Fischer was requested, that was the only request which was addressed to you, is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Did you and Fischer discuss the result of his auditing at all?
A. Never, nor did I know that he had ever drawn up an auditing report and had it written as it were in the office of the DEST.
Q. But it is true that the request was addressed to you to borrow or to lend your auditor to Dr. Horn?
A. Yes, the request was made by Dr. Horn.
Q. Well, that concludes this chapter, and I should now like you to tell us briefly about the period of time when the DEST and the MesserSchmitt works, and perhaps the other firms as well, got into touch with each other in order to work on the armament program.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Froeschmann, before you go to another subject, can you tell us, Herr Mumenthey, in what document the mistake about the inmate labor in Bohemia was make?
DR. FROESCHMANN: Just a moment. That is document NO-1220, Exhibit 442, Document Book 16, page 64 of the English text.
THE WITNESS: May I add, Your Honor, that the mistake was made only in the index, in the index of book 16.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we don't pay any attention to the index anyway.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q. Please tell us more about the armament program.
A. At the end of 1942 or the beginning of 1943, the Messerschmitt works in Regensburg contacted the plant of Flossenboerg through the Armament Inspectorate of Regensburg, with reference to taking over the production of spare parts. Essentially we were concerned here with corrogated iron which was important for the cabin of the aircraft, also for the fuselage and the wings.
Negotiations were made independently by the plant manager there because there was no time then to have longwinded contracts drawn up. Messerschmitt thought it was the most important thing to carry out the Fighter Program; therefore, an arrangement had to suffice which would permit the most simple methods of auditing and so forth without requiring too much personnel. Messerschmitt supplied the raw material, machines, equipment, and skilled personnel, while the civilian workers and inmates who had up to then worked in the granite pits were now to work for Messerschmitt. This production expanded as time went on, and it continued until the end of the war. In the same manner which I have described just not, the production for Messerschmitt was carried out after 1943 in St. Georgen under Messerschmitt's own Management; and later on, in about 1944, also in Nevrohlau. But there we had only work connected with installations on switchboards; in other words, this was very easy work.
Q. Witness, it seems to me that this description is not that important. You may remember that this witness has alleged that, particularly as far as these armament programs in Mauthausen were concerned, a number of grave crimes against humanity were committed. If I follow you correctly, the DEST put at the disposal of the Messerschmitt Works their space, their current, their electric light, some of its equipment; but otherwise, the whole program was carried out in the interest of the Messerschmitt Works which had its own engineers. Consequently, the treatment of the inmates was really subject to the supervision of the Messerschmitt Works?
A. The production in S. Georgen and Flossenboerg was in the hands of Messerschmitt without any doubt. After all, the DEST was not an aircraft producing firm; it did not have the skilled labor for that. All directives to the inmates and civilian workers came from the employees of Messerschmitt. Both in Flossenboerg and St. Georgen, the Messerschmitt firm had an office which was directed by an engineer, and he was responsible for production.
DR. FROESCHMANN: I only want to state this, if Your Honors, please, in order to have a reference when I shall enter my argument later on.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q. Now, what about Gross-Rosen and other words, Oranienburg, which also worked in armament production.
A. Yes, In Gross-Rosen some of the work shops were left to the Rheinmetall Borsig Works who worked under their own directives, and we had nothing to do with them at all. It was simply that we leased our space. The same applied to St. Georgen as far as the Styrian Works were concerned. Here again we simply put space at their disposal. In Oranienburg some of the Brick Works produced shells for the OKH, but I must say we did not have a testing station there. In Rothau, the DEST had taken over work on aircraft engines for the Junkers Works. Of all this, I can say from my own observations and according to the opinion given by experts with whom I talked frequently, that the only leave work of all the work was done in the work shops of Oranienburg. What we could do in order to alleviate conditions there, we did. And I believe that through an affidavit by a former inmate, this will be borne out beyond any doubt.
Q. Herr Mumenthey, this brings me to the end of the first part of my presentation of evidence.
A. Dr. Lroeschmann, I would like to say something in general about all this. While the armament production went on, particularly with reference to aircraft production, I believe that working conditions on the whole became easier rather than worse. This armament program, as far as the commandants were concerned, gave the inmates a chance to obtain a number of alleviations from the point of view of the Fighter Program. To remind people of the Fighter Program was very often sufficient to appease even the harshest commandant. Inmates who worked in these productions were given the same additional food and tobacco rations as were given to the civilian workers. I convinced myself of that. As far as I know, inmates who worked on the Fighter Program were given beyond that additionally, the so-called Fighter Extra-Ration.
This, during the war, was the highest supplementary ration which was ever issued to anybody.
Q. Is that the end of your statement?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Herr Mumenthey, I have also come to the end of the first part of my presentation of evidence of general observations of the plants and activities of the DEST. I shall now come to the second and last part of my evidence, which is your attitude towards the inmates, measures you took, suggestions you made, and so forth. You know from our conversations that I asked you repeatedly how it was that you of all people, as a leading expert, thought about the problem of inmates. What was your fundamental attitude toward that? Please describe the principles that you followed and the actions you took.
A. I grew up in a poor region of the Erzgebirge on the frontier of Czechoslovakia. There was very little agricultural soil; it was mountainous country very thickly populated, and this lead to the home industry which is so usual in that part of Germany. That industry, although the production there was extremely good, did not really lead to very much in Germany; but abroad, particularly in the United States, they did very well. The popular opinion in my home region was as follows: Bread comes from far afield. The small profit and the difficult fool situation lead to tentions between employers and employees in this part of Germany. On the other side of the mountain, we had the coal mining area of Brix, where the miners for years had lived under poor conditions in muserable quarters and where the owners of the mines lived a good life. I went to school with three or four classes, and from my own experience, I saw under what type of conditions they lived. From my earliest childhood, I saw the suffering and misery of these people.
Court No. II, Case No. IV.
The harsh conditions of work, particularly the class struggle which, since the end of the First World War, led to the foul excesses by the communist Hoelz.
My father, who was in charge of a cooperative bank, and his honorary position as a Buergermeister, and his activities and charitable organizations, gave me my first impressions of social problems. When he talked to me about them they awakened my interest to find out why these things were like that. Any liberal ideas, such as the ones of Friedrich List, who was a hero of my father's, and the work he did, which was entirely wrapped up in the ideas of cooperative bands--gave me many an occasion to deliberate on the problem of how people who are economically unfree could be liberated from their economic bondage.
Then my father occupied himself very profoundly with the ideas of Freiherr von Stein, with all ideas of self-administration, and so forth. Under his influence I opposed any idea of unhealthy centralization.
When I attented high school in Chemnitz, a city which was once so rich and now is desolate since its industries have been dismantled, I made contacts with the sons of employees, clerks, workers, and I saw more of the social contrasts. The work at school itself was confined to becoming familiar with the industries there. We visited large plants and medium-sized plants of this industrial area, and, once again, I had the opportunity of studying the conditions under which a worker lived.
While I was an apprentice at a bank I contacted the clients who came from all classes of the population. I found out about their worries, particularly of the medium-sized and small plants. But I also saw how powerful the big concerns were. I studied the varying conditions of work in the various plants. The desire to improve was handicapped by the absence of funds. People lived from hand-to-mouth.
While I was at the university I studied social questions theoretically and practically. The colleges arranged for a number of study trips of some length in the Frankfurt area to the Ruhr, to the Berlin industries, and the central German industrial area. What I saw at that time, especially about what the model plants did in the welfare work, Bosch in Stuttgart, Zeiss in Jena, and Krupp in Essen interested me deeply.
I was always interested in finding out under what conditions people worked and how they lived, and also the question of how a worker could best share in the fruits of his labor. Therefore, as I studied, I became more and more interested in social questions, and I became more and more obsessed with the idea that charity, even if it is organized by the State, is not the best method to improve radically the economic position of the individual. Of particular importance for my later development while I was an assistant was when I inspected a number of penal institutions which, as I said before, took me to Hamburg in 1928. There are things in life which you can never forget because, they have planted themselved firmly upon your memory. That sort of impression I gained when I inspected the penal camp, and I emphasize the word "camp," of Sarsmoor, near Hamburg. Above the entrance it says: "You must improve earth by man--and then you will improve man by the earth."
Here, for the first time I saw prisoners who were not living inside a prison; they moved about freely in the camp. You could hardly see the barbed wore fence. That camp, and its inmates, did not give you that depressing feeling which you get in a prison with its cells. The prisoners whom I saw there, unlike the prisoners in the prisons of Hamburg, gave me the impression of being healthy and openminded human beings. While I was being trained as a legal assistant from 1934 to 1937 I visited the penal institutions of Waldheim and Bautzen, in Sazony. There we saw the workshops which were part of the prison, and there the prisoner did all sorts of work. They had lectures and discussions, and the men in charge of these institutions acquainted us with their experiences and ideas about penal reforms.
This is how in the course of the years I studied the conditions, worries and suffering of free workers, and also the situation of those people who had violated &he laws of society.
THE PRESIDENT: Would this be a good place to stop for the recess, please?
THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Take your seats please.
The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. FICHT FOR KLEIN: Your Honor, I would, appreciate it if the defendant Klein could be excused from presence in court this afternoon to prepare his defense.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Klein will be excused at the request of his counsel from the session this afternoon.
BY DR. FROSSHMANN:
Q. Herr Mummenthey, will you please continue your statements.
A. As a result of the impression which I related before and as a result of my own struggle to clarify and solve those questions my activity after that was guided by those point of view. Human beings, were the subject of my reflections free or captive, those people who had been sentenced to serve a certain time in jail by higher authorities, I assumed were human beings and had to be returned to their place in society. How they should be returned to their place in society I dealt with after that. At the time I didn't think and didn't know what problems would be arising later on in my life. One idear gained more and more in brain namely, effective means had to be found in order to prevent them from a return to theirs crimes and they should not be restrained and held as captive human beings but would have to be put to work. It was the only thing to find jobs for human beings who are looking for an honest life- and to put them in a position to avoid the same crimes which he committed at first.
Q. Herr Mummenthey, the Prosecution charges you generally speaking with the use of concentration camp inmates in the enterprises of DEST and of working conditions and working terms which the Prosecution calls inhumane slave labor. The Prosecution furthermore tried to say you are connected with the mistreatment and killings which were committed while working and finally the Prosecutions charges you with the use of prisoners of war and members of other Nations in the service of the armament a crime against the Hague, Geneva and other agreements or treatied.
I would appreciate it if you would make some statement as to this nucleus of the Prosecution's charges.
A. I have already described my education at home which showed me the correct life to be led by any normal human being. I even used that education which I got at home in my activities at DEST. not only in the life I led personally but also on the treatment of that problem which is the nucleuw of the Prosecution's changes against me, namely, the problem of the inmates. It is the Prosecution's contention that with reference to all the happenings of the inmate labor assignments, whether in Oranienburg, Mauthausen, or Flossenbuerg, the business management of the DEST was responsible. Such an idea can only be explained by a somewhat unconscious and conscious camouflage by the withnesses and documents and also by regarding as one unit the SS enterprises within concentration camps as work shops in the camos, and out side of the camps the firms which were independent of concentration camps--firms according by law.
Q. Witness, you are futhermore held responsible fundamentally as the business manager of DEST for employment of inmates. What do you have to say about the fundamental side of this problem?
A. First of all I have to deny this fundamental change as I did the others. I have already stressed the point that the field of tasks and the distribution for the fields of task were carried out in such a manner that I took care of financial matters, Schwarz dealt with commercial matters of the Granite works and Schondorff was in charge of the brick works. The assignment of labor, foremen, technicians, aunillary help, etc., was the task of that agency which had something to do with the planning of the enterprises, with the exection of the plans and the fulfillment of technical tasks. They alone could actually fix the number of inmates ans apply for these people in the shape of a big application with Herr Pohl. After the application had been dilivered they would request these inmates with the leaders of the concentration camps.
The technical charge of the supervision of all the enterprises was not with me - it was not even with my ficticuous title as chief of office but with Schondorff who was solely responsible for that and Herr Guttchen from 1942 for the Granite works. In this connection let me point out that Herr Schondorff on the basis of special permission by Pohl had been permitted to visit various concentration camps and request there the necessary and fit workers who could be used for the labor assignment. Now if the Prosecution used that as one of its main points the inmate labor-- it should not be directed against me. If I dealt with the betterment of general and special condition of inmates. This was actually outside of my competency. According to my opinion I did something there which was not part of my tasks and did not belong and fit into the circle of my tasks to derive from this point a responsibility on my part goes beyond the legal possibilities in holding responsible one partner of a business management for a thing outside his competencies
Q. Herr Mummenthey, you found in fact when you entered the Dest that labor assignments already existed, what was your attitude.
A. According to my opinion labor assignments were directed in line with the labor act dates November 1938 which laborer act had been signed by both Herr Pohl and Eicke who was concentration camp inspectore at that time. What was contained in that labor law in detail I an't tell you today because in my official capacity I had nothing to do with it. Labor assignments at that time and later on ere a matter for administrative department of the concentration camp. I can recall that the labor act since 1938 was changed and ammended and finally in 1944. I can't tell you for sure if the date is correct, it was changed by official regulation in a premium law. I found out about that unofficially at the time I gained a not very good impression of labor assignments. All the necessary files were with the Kommandantures. As a man outside I didn't gain to much of an impression and insight in the files with reference to works management.
As far as that was of importance and necessary in order to prepare release requests and to deal with them. As far as it was concorned with groups inmates I was not interested in the beginning. I saw that the inmate wore several kinds of patches there but didn't pay to much attention. Thing that became important later on was the distinction according to skilled and auxillary labor, and inmates use for labor assignments were designated thus in the course of years I found out that people who had those green triangles from which those BVs developed. Were more excessive in number that red and is proven books by Kogon, Gross and Weiss Ruetell.
Later on I did find out that there were also certain inmates amongst those used for labor assignments who were in the concentration camp or in captivity due to their political opinion and political activity. I learned about the people who wore the red triangle. Men and women who were in the concentration camp due to their political activity or political opinion, or because they had said something they did not think too much about, furthermore, Jehova's Witnesses who were in the concentration camp because they refused to go to the war, all these people were not regarded by me as criminals but only as human beings who had different political ideas, --- that such people should be placed in a concentration camp or an internment camp for a shorter or longer period of time, as it is expressed today euphemistically, to put them in custody, was in the power of the state. If this was justified from a moral point of view is not for me to decide. It may be expedient for the state. The question was if the aim had been reached, namely to change their ideas.
The fact about an internment in the camps as such did not seem something particularly important or something extraordinary to me. As I said before, already in 1928 I saw the work of the inmates in a large camp, prison camp. I knew on the basis of my own knowledge about penal institutions and about the penal institution regulations which existed in the Justice Department, that it was a duty to carry out some work in the penal institutions. I knew about the order which had extended the day to people who were being examined and who were prisoners, not in protective custody, but prisoners awaiting trial probably. They had to do work too. Even though they were persons who were awaiting trial, they had to do work. Therefore I couldn't see why inmates should not also be put to work, which inmates due to an attitude which was dangerous to the state had been placed in custody according - or placed in custody in a concentration camp according to a police warrant which had been issued against them.
Q. Just a moment, Witness, you are now speaking of the police warrant of arrest. You know on the basis of the proceeding of this trial that this warrant of arrest on the part of the police quite often was issued upon certain incidents which objectively seen could not be considered sufficient justification to issue a warrant of arrest. Did you at that time, when you had those various misgivings about those things, did you at any time deal with the warrant of arrest as such, and what was your attitude towards it?
A. Permit me to point out to the Tribunal my own opinion here frankly. At the time I regarded the warrant of arrest as something legal according to the regulations and laws which prevailed at the time, exactly as I can't understand today the automatic arrest which has taken place in the internment camps and I would not regard it as something that is illegal. As far as duty for work is concerned in the concentration camps or working camps, respectively, labor camps, at the time according to the regulations prevailing at the time, I regarded those also as legal, and I still insist on my idea because such compulsory labor camps, or labor camps as such still exist today. For instance, in the Russian Zone, as reported by the papers, and Russia is one of the signatory members of the London Charter, and also one of the signing members of the Control Council Law -- I cannot assume that one of the signatory powers would insist on something that is not quite legal and carry it out. Therefore if today, even today under the Control Council Law there is such a things as arrest due to security reasons and also compulsory labor camps, I believe that those two institutions as such, according to my opinion, cannot be something illegal.
Q. Did you know anything at the time about the systematic violation of law by any police agencies, namely that the commitment to a concentration camp was carried out based on a protective custody warrant, and did you think that those could have been illegal?
A. At the time I knew just as little about those things as millions of others did. In my belief of the integrity of state authorities or state agencies. I couldn't possibly have thought that those things were illegal. During my conversations with the man in charge of this matter, the RSHA Oberregierungsrat Dr. Berndorf, I saw again and again that there were numerous files. I did not see in one single case, nor did I hear one single case where an inmate had been committed to a concentration camp without a trial or without any act which he had committed. I correct that, not commitment to a concentration camp but commitment to a prison. I couldn't have any doubts at the time about the veracity of all those actions.
Q. Witness, did you look upon the Gestapo as a state institution which did comply with the law, or did you have certain misgivings at the time with reference to this Gestapo?
A. I couldn't, I couldn't because the Gestapo office and the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps had been established based on legal laws at the time. As lawyers we had been educated for years and years to being positive about the law in Germany.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Witness, do I understand that you looked upon the Gestapo as a legally-created organization, and therefore everything which it did was legal? Does that sum up your comment on the Gestapo angle?
THE WITNESS: At the time that was my opinion, Your Honor, yes. The Gestapo was created based on the law.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Did you not know of the excesses of the Gestapo that went even beyond their own law?
THE WITNESS: At the time I heard nothing about that.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: That is all. Next question.
Q. (By Dr. Froeschmann) Well then, Witness, you heard nothing about it that already in the arrest and in the commitment to the concentration-camp there were certain abuses at the time?