Q. Now, witness, I gave you a clear statement of what I understand your testimony to be. Now, will you answer yes or no as to whether my statement was correct; and that was, that all you know about prisoners of war being used in DEST enterprises is that it was proposed to use Russian PW's in Mauthausen in the training program, but you don't know whether actually they were ever used?
A I cannot recall anymore today whether this plan was actually carried out.
Q. All right.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Witness, answer the question that he asks you. You didn't answer it at all. We have to ask you about three times to get you to answer a question. It is just taking up too much time. Now, answer the question he asks you, then if you have any explanation to make, you have a right to do that; but first answer the question, and then make any explanation that you have.
A. It is described here that Soviet prisoners of war are to be used. Whether this was actually done or not, I don't know.
BY MR. MC HANEY:
Q. Do you know of any other -
THE PRESIDENT: Is that all you know about the use of Russian prisoners of war?
A. I cannot recall any other cases, Your Honor.
BY MR. MC HANEY:
Q. And can you recall any other cases of the use of any prisoners of war, Russian or otherwise?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever request prisoners of war for use in the DEST enterprises?
A. Negotiations took place on one occasion with a prisoner of war camp about the procurement of prisoners of war.
However, as far as I can recall, this plan was never carried out.
Q. Well, you tried to get them, but you failed, is that it?
A. Yes. This plan was disapproved.
Q. And where were you going to use these prisoners of war?
A. In my opinion, they were to be used at Neurohlau.
Q. That was the lovely labor camp you were describing a little earlier. Turn to Roman 3 under Gross-Rosen in this report. You find in the second paragraph the statement about the 200 inmates who were in the Sick-Bay?
A. Yes.
Q. You got reports about illnesses among the inmates, didn't you, defendant?
A. I have already starred that when you asked me about that yesterday.
Q. Well, witness, all you told us about yesterday was the typhoid epidemic, and you told us that it existed in 4 or 5 camps. Now, you single out Gross-Rosen here and mentioned two hundred sick inmates. World you say that was part of the typhoid epidermic?
A. As far as I can recall at the time at Gross-Rosen there was a quarantine imposed because of a typhoid epidemic. I believe that this quarantine is mentioned in one of the prosecution's documents. It was in the beginning of 1942.
Q. Now, witness, will you turn to the last page of this report. I will ask you first what camp, concentration camp was close to your Margurg plant?
A. There was no concentration camp at all.
Q. Well, where did you get your inmates for use in your Marburg plant?
A. No inmates were employed at Marburg. We only had civilian workers there who had already worked in the enterprise before, and they were residing in the vicinity.
Q. On the last page, do you find -- that is on page 13 of the original -- you find the reference to the 25 French prisoners of war?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you forget about those?
A. These prisoners of war worked for Bohemia, and then later the labor office withdrew them. I didn't consider the employment of these prisoners of war to be incorrect because after all they were manufacturing porcelain goods here.
Q. You did employ Russian prisoners of war in the enterprises which you had under your control, isn't that right?
THE PRESIDENT: Russian prisoners of war, did you say?
MR. MC HANEY: Did he employ prisoners of war in the enterprises under his control.
A. The Soviet prisoners of war who are mentioned in the following paragraph, actually never arrived. I have already mentioned that the negotiations did not bear any results.
Q. Well, but you were employing 25 French prisoners of war, and they left and then you request 25 Soviet prisoners of war, didn't you?
A. 50 Russian prisoners of war were requested; however, they never arrived.
Q. Now, witness, you claim that you had roll calls eliminated, is that right?
A. In the course of the years we succeeded insofar as the number of roll calls was concerned, as as far as the time of the roll calls was concerned, we were able to restrict them. The roll calls which took place in the plants only lasted a very short time.
Q. How, witness, you testified very clearly yesterday, and I made a note of it that you succeeded in having the roll calls eliminated, abolished.
That is not true, is it?
A. I stated that the roll calls were limited and abolished.
Q. Well, what does "abolish" mean? That means "done away with", doesn't it?
A. Yes. Before that more roll calls took place, and then we had fewer of then.
Q. But you still had some roll calls?
A. Yes.
Q. And your witness Bickel testified that they had one in the morning, and one in the afternoon in the camp, and they had three during the day in the DEST enterprises. That is five altogether. You remember his testimony, don't you?
A. Yes.
Q. You don't dispute that that was correct, do you?
A. The roll calls which took place at the plant had lasted longer before, and they took place on more frequent occasions. We succeeded in limiting then or abolishing them. There were also plants in which they only had one roll call and that would be held at noontime in the plant.
A. Did you have to get permission from the concentration camp commander to visit your own plants?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A Not from the concentration damp commander.
Q Well, from whom did you have to get permission to visit your own plants?
A I had a pass from the chief of Office Group D, and on this pass it stated that I was authorized to enter the plant.
Q So you could go into the plant at any time you wanted to? You had a permanent pass?
A Yes, for entering the plant premises.
Q And were your plants surrounded by barbed wire?
A Not in the first years of the war, but later on barbed wire was put around them, and this was done because we did not have sufficient guards. Before that, a chain of guards, so to speak, had surrounded the plant; and later on the barbed wire was substituted for the guards. These measures of security and guarding were not carried out by us but the construction management of the particular camp was in charge of that.
Q Did you have guards on towers surrounding these plants?
A I haven't quite understood your question.
Q I say, did you have guards on towers surrounding these plants?
A Guards? The barbed wire fence was interrupted by guard towers on various places, and guards would be stationed along these guard towers.
Q Now, you testified that you made as many as a hundred applications for the release of inmates working for the DEST, and that Gluecks threatened you about this, is that correct?
A More than a hundred, as far as I can recall.
Q Now, what did you know about the policy of DEST in refusing to release inmates who were working for DEST when the RSHA was ready to let them out?
A We never objected to any order of release by the RSHA, and we never took any influence on that; to the contrary, we were glad about every release.
Q Now, witness, I am sure you realize that in the exhibits of Court No. II, Case No. 4.this trial there are several letters from plant managers of DEST enterprises stating that certain inmates are not to be released because they are valuable workers.
You know about those, don't you?
A This document has already been discussed at various times here, and it refers to something quite different. Hereby we were only to get the opportunity so replacements being trained before the inmate were released so that the plant manager would be informed at an early period of time about the impending release. That was the entire sense of this document. We never kept any inmate in any form in our plant against the orders. We would have been unable to do that.
Q Well, you simply got in your say so before the order was issued; you delayed the issuing of the order; you said this man is valuable, "He is not to be released. In the meantime we may try to get a replacement." That is the sense of it, isn't it?
A No, not so, if I have understood the translation correctly. I stated that the plant manager was to be notified whenever a release was impending so that he could procure a replacement in time.
Q Your testimony is that in no case did DEST either refuse or prevent the release of an inmate, nor did they delay the release of an inmate, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Well, I will just simply call the Tribunal's attention to Document NO-1972, Prosecution Exhibit 429; it is on page 19 of Book 16, I think it is unnecessary to belabor the witness with the document.
Now, witness, in connection with your basic defense that you had no influence on billeting and food and clothing, and other such matters, concerning inmates--that that was the exclusive responsibility of the camp commanders--I will ask you if you didn't know that that was the situation when you took your job as co-manager of DEST in 1939?
A I only found out about these things in the course of time; when I entered that position, I did not know anything at all about these things.
Q Well, how long did it take you to find out, defendant? How long did it take you to find out that the concentration camp supplied Court No. II, Case No. 4.the guards for these inmates that were working in your plants?
How long did it take you to find out that the concentration camp furnished the food?
A In the course of the year 1939 I saw how the various authorities were distributed.
Q You testified that you didn't know that the penal companies worked in the DEST plants. Your manager knew about that, didn't he?
A I stated that I didn't hear anything at all about the penal company. I described the penal measures which did come to my knowledge, and I saw to it that they were abolished.
Q I didn't ask you that; I said your plant manager certainly knew that the penal company was working for DEST, didn't he?
A Whether and to what extent that was done, I don't know.
Q Well, let's suppose you were a plant manager, defendant. Would you, or would you now, have known who was working in the clay pit in Neuengamme?
A Naturally, yes.
Q Now, you testified that the Flossenbuerg concentration camp commander was transferred because he had been mistreating the inmates, and you had him taken care of. Do you know where that man was sent? Where was he transferred to?
AAs far as I can recall, he was sent to a combat unit.
Q What was his name?
A His name was Kuenstler.
Q Now, don't you know, as a matter of fact, that his personal records in the SS files reveal that he was transferred--not because he was mistreating anybody but because he was a drunkard? You know that, don't you, defendant? He was a drunkard, wasn't he?
AAs far as I can recall, various reasons accumulated which led to his transfer.
Q And you knew that one of them was transferred because he drank a lot, didn't you, defendant. He was a drunkard.
A I hard that, too, yes.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q And would it surprise you to know that his SS records show that the reason he was transferred was because he was a drunkard--not because he was mistreating the inmates?
A Mr. Prosecutor, I don't know the exact reasons. I can only repeat here what I know from hearsay.
Q Now, you also testified that they removed the concentration camp commander and the administrative leader at Neuengamme on your suggestion. It seems to me that your witness Bickel testified that those men were transferred to other camps, isn't that right?
A I did not say that they had been transferred or that any other measures had been taken against them on my suggestion, but I pointed out that as a result of the incidents which I have described these persons were apparently transferred as a penal measure. The witness Bickel has described the incident here when Pohl went to Neuengamme. In connection with this, these transfers were carried out. Whether this was the only reason, I don't know.
Q Well, I understood-
A I, myself, did not have any influence on the transfer of a concentration camp commander. I could only point out various things which had come to my knowledge.
Q Well, I was under the mistaken impression apparently that you wanted the Tribunal to give you the benefit of having secured the transfer of these concentration camp commanders, but apparently that is not so.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. McHaney, you called our attention to Exhibit 429, Document Book 16, page 19, as seeming to settle the question of whether or not the defendant had ever blocked the release of skilled workers.
MR. MC HANEY: I read it that way, yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: For the moment, I can't remember when he became Works Manager at DEST. What was the date?
MR. MC HANEY: The defendant?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
MR. MC HANEY: He became co-manager in 1939.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, this document, of course, is not a letter from him; it is signed by Grimm.
MR. MC HANEY: That is quite true, Your Honor, and the witness identified Grimm as being at Mauthausen later on; apparently in 1941, he was in Buchenwald.
THE PRESIDENT: Buchenwald, yes.
MR. MC HANEY: The letter here is from the plant manager--well, no.
THE PRESIDENT: It is from Grimm-
MR. MC HANEY: It is from Grimm to the manager of the DWB--DAW and DEST.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, does it express the attitude of DEST?
MR. MC HANEY: Well, if the Tribunal please, I would find it rather difficult to believe that the leader of the Labor Assignment Office in Buchenwald would write to DEST and invite from them a report on valuable prisoners whose release should not be given unless there was some understanding between the parties that that was the policy.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, doesn't this letter advise the understanding just as the witness explained it? Reading the last paragraph, it says that: "skilled workers shall not be released until an able substitute has been provided, and there are no objections to an eventual release," which is exactly what the witness said.
MR. MC HANEY: No, Your Honor, I very clearly put the question to you as to whether the DEST delayed the release of the man, and I think the import of this letter is quite clear to the effect that DEST reported inmates who were valuable and who could not at that time be released.
THE PRESIDENT: Until a substitute was provided...
MR. MC HANEY: That is quite correct. And in any event, no valuable worker was released until a substitute was provided. Now, I say that permits of a delay in the release of an inmate, while you can't conclude that it prevented the eventual release; that is quite true. But my question to him was two-fold: whether it prevented release altogether, Court No. II, Case No. 4.and whether it delayed release.
And it is the Prosecution position that this letter certainly permits of an inference that release was delayed in any event.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: And was delayed at the instance of DEST. Do you imply that?
MR. MC HANEY: Yes, I understood that. I don't think the RSHA had any interest in delaying the release. The report from DEST on the valuable workers was the necessary prerequisite to any delay in the release. The delay was for the very purpose of protecting the drain-off or so-called valuable or specialist workers from DEST. That was the very purpose of it.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me that the difficulty of your position is that this is merely a request by Grimm to furnish the names of these skilled prisoners, and then Grimm goes on to say that they cannot be immediately released or exchanged.
MR. MC HANEY: That's right.
THE PRESIDENT: But must find a substitute.
MR. MC HANEY: That's right.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words, that is not an expression of the defendant but of Grimm. The most that you can say is that Grimm asked for the names of the prisoners who would be subjected to this delay. However, I don't want to prolong the argument, but just to get your interpretation.
I don't think we disagree on the interpretation. It's -
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
THE WITNESS: I beg your pardon. May I say something in this connection. You stated what I thought about this letter with regard to the name of Grimm. This man is not the same man about whom you asked me yesterday. It is another Grimm.
Q You knew this Grimm, did you?
A This Grimm?
Q Yes.
A Yes.
Q And what was his position there in Buchenwald?
A He was the labor allocation officer.
Q And didn't reference there to Book I-5 refer to the office Court No. II, Case No. 4.of Burboeck?
A I understood you to say Burboeck.
Q Yes.
A You mean Burboeck?
Q Yes, does the name refer to Office I-5, refer to Burboeck?
A It only states here the man in charge of the outside agency I-5. Nothing else is stated in the letter.
Q Well, but wasn't the man in charge of Office I-5 in Berlin Burboeck?
A Yes, that was Burboeck.
Q And Burboeck was a member of the forerunner of the WVHA in charge of labor allocation in Berlin, wasn't he?
A Yes.
Q Now you testified yesterday that most concentration camp commanders held an SS rank which was higher than your own. I don't believe that's so. What was the rank of Ziereis in Mauthausen, the same as yours, wasn't it, Defendant? Obersturmbannfuehrer?
A No, he was Standartenfuehrer.
Q When did he get his rank of Standartenfuehrer?
A I can't tell you that. I don't know that any more.
Q You never had a rank equivalent to that of Ziereis, a contemporary rank equivalent to Ziereis? Wasn't he an Obersturmbannfuehrer when you were an Obersturmbannfuehrer, Defendant?
AAs far as I can recall, he always held a higher rank than I did.
Q Now, isn't it true that Standartenfuehrer was a very high rank for a concentration camp commander? Ziereis, for instance, had been at Mauthausen for about five or six years, hadn't he, Defendant?
A Four years, as far as I can recall.
Q Well, it's not true to say that most of the concentration camp commanders had a higher rank than you did, is it, Defendant? Weren't there several of them -
A Most of them held a higher rank.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q You say that most of them held the rank of Standartenfuehrer?
A Yes. In part, they were also Oberfuehrers.
Q Now, Defendant, about this struggle between you and the concentration camp commanders. I don't quite understand the struggle, because your testimony has been that you managed to get all these difficulties straightened out, isn't that true?
A Generally, I succeeded in doing that.
Q And, in any struggle, wasn't the Defendant Pohl over here the chief of all these man whom you were struggling with?
A In my opinion, the camp commanders had several chiefs.
Q Well, now, let's not go into that. He was one of their chiefs, wasn't he?
A In one respect, yes.
Q Well, if Pohl told them to do something, they did it, didn't they, Defendant, particularly with respect to food, clothing, billeting, work regulations?
A I haven't quite understood your question. Would you please repeat it?
Q Pohl was the boss of the commanders as far as food and clothing, billeting, work regulations, wasn't he?
A Yes.
Q So, if you were really having any struggle and you didn't succeed in that struggle, then it is the Defendant Pohl's burden, isn't it, Defendant?
A Well, I would submit the matter to Pohl.
Q Defendant, I understand your testimony to be that DEST paid bonuses as early as 1940, not only paid bonuses, but paid cash to the inmates, is that right?
A Yes.
Q Your testimony is that in the years 1940 to 1942 you paid cash to the concentration camp and the concentration camp made this cash available to the inmates, is that right?
A Well, whether this was handled in this way up to 1942 I don't Court No. II, Case No. 4.know exactly any more.
At first we paid the bonuses in cash directly into the hands of the inmate. Later on the amount on the basis of a list was turned over to the camp administration and it was put on the account of the inmates. He could then dispose of this account.
Q When did DEST pay it directly to the inmates, this cash money?
AAt the end of 1940 and early in 1941 this was started. Then we began the program within the scope of the training of professional skilled inmates.
Q Now, your witness Bickel was here and he was specifically asked -- I think by the Tribunal -- about these bonuses and Bickel said he didn't get any bonuses until 1942. Before 1942 Bickel said he had to be supported by help from home, by money, and he was working for DEST in the very early part of 1940. How do you explain the fact that Bickel didn't get any bonuses, if you paid one?
A Mr. Prosecutor, just when this program was introduced in the individual plants, I don't know. It was introduced very gradually. It was used in the granite works and then it was given in the brick works. Therefore, this may have been already in the year of 1942.
Q Well, but in 1942, he didn't get any money. He just got some script.
A From 1942 on approximately we had to purchase so-called coupons and script from the camp administration which were handed out to the inmates. We had to pay in cash for this script and then we had to turn it over to the inmates.
Q You really don't know much about this bonus system, do you? You don't know when it was introduced or how it was handled? That is a fact, isn't it?
A I have told you when we introduced it, we began in 1940. In the course of time this program was developed; and finally in 1942, after the Office B-II had been established, it was taken over there in the form of a bonus system.
Q In any event, they didn't get it into Neuengamme until 1942, Court No. II, Case No. 4.according to Bickel.
A Bickel testified to that here.
Q Now what was your connection with the Slate Oil?
A The Slate Oil, G.m.b.H., which was formed, was to become part of Office W-I. However, this was never done. This plant was not in operation and we did not have a plant manager there. Just how this matter developed later on, I don't know.
Q W-I never took over Slate Oil, is that right?
A No.
Q Even though Schwarz became a co-manager?
A One time he was appointed business manager and he has testified here that he never took over that activity.
Q I am not quite clear about the employment of Jews by DEST. You mention certain Jewesses which were employed in the office at Ausehwitz?
A Yes.
Q What office was that?
A That was the plant office.
Q That was not located within the camp itself?
A No.
Q How far away was it from the camp?
A Several kilometers.
Q Two or three?
A Several kilometers. I can't tell you the exact distance.
Q How many Jewesses did you have employed there?
A I don't know the exact number. I can only tell you from my memory. I can only tell you about the Jewesses whom the plant manager took along when he left the enterprise and whom I saw later at Neurohlau. That must have been 1944 or 1946.
Q The only operation DEST had at Auschwitz was this gravel dredging operation?
A Yes.
A Did DEST employ Jews anywhere else?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A They used them in the diamond cutting plant, Herzogenbusch, which was to be established. Jews were to be used as employees where the machines were prepared. However, this plant was never put into operation, because the raw material was lacking.
Q But other than there, there were no Jews employed by DEST?
A I can't recall that Jews were working in any other enterprise.
Q Did you ever contemplate hiring, or rather, using Jewish inmates at DEST? Did you ever make any efforts to get any Jewish inmates for DEST?
A No.
Q Let us look at Document NO-4341.
Q. Defendant, this is a letter from the Reich Minister for Labor, dated March 14, 1941, to the presidents of the District Labor Exchanges concerning the labor assignment of the Jews. Do you recognize the handwritten note in the upper right hand corner of this letter?
A. No. I can't recognize it.
Q. That is not your handwriting?
A. No.
Q. What is the word or phrase at the end of that handwritten note? Isn't that Mumm, M-u-m-m?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, I can't identify it here because it is very unclear on the photo copy.
Q. Can you read the handwritten note on the photo copy?
A. No.
Q. Well, suppose I attempt to read it for you and see if you can then decipher it. Does it say "III A noted for Natzweiler according to telephone information ( Mumm )"? Is that what it says?
A. Can't read it the way it is here.
Q. You can't read it? Have you read the letter?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you approached with the proposal to use part of these Jews in the DEST operation at Natzweiler?
A. I can't recall this matter at all.
Q. Going back to the handwritten note. In March 1941 you were a member of Office III A, were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. And at that time DEST had an enterprise at Natzweiler, didn't they? A quarry there?
A. Yes.
Q. I will ask that Document NO-4341 be narked as Prosecution Exhibit 622 for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: Who wrote it?
BY MR. MC HANEY:
Q. Will the Tribunal please, witness, can you identify or read the signature on the bottom of the letter?
A. Second page?
Q. Yes. Who signed the letter, can you tell?
A. No. This must have been an expert with the Reich Ministry of Labor.
Q. You can't read his signature?
A. No.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it was from the Reich Ministry of Labor, from somebody in that Ministry?
A. Yes. I must assume that on the basis of this document.
BY MR. McHANEY:
Q. And the letter is signed?
A. Yes, it contains a signature here.
Q. Now, witness, how often did you visit the DEST plant at Auschwitz?
A. As far as I can recall I was there on two or three occasion.
Q. In what years?
A. In 1940, 1941 and 1943.
Q. Did you meet the came commander Hoess while you were there?
A. When the plant was taken over I had once a discussion with the commander there.
Q. Was that Hoess or Liebehenschel?
A. As far as I can recall that was with Hoess.
Q. Did you have any dealings with the defendant Sommer in Auschwitz?
A. No.
Q. Did you know that he was in the labor allocation office in Auschwitz?
A. Are you referring now to the defendant Sommer, Mr. Prosecutor?
Q. Yes.
A. I have never heard that the defendant Sommer had worked in the labor allocation office at Auschwitz.
Q. Had you ever heard that he worked in Auschwitz in any capacity?
A. No. I only knew that he was working in Office D II at Oranienburg.
Q. Now, how many times did you go to Treblinka?
A. Before the gravel area was leased I went there on one occasion and then never again.
Q. And when were you in Treblinka?
A. As far as I can recall it was the spring of 1943.
Q. Spring 1943?
A. Yes, the spring of 1943.
Q. And did you deal with Globocnik while you were there?
A. I don't know Mr. Globocnik at all.
Q. Well, who did you lease this plant from?
A. From a building contractor in Warsaw.
Q. Well, you had no dealings with Globocnick while in Lublin and Treblinka?
A. I never had any connection with him in my life.
Q. Deal with anybody on his staff?
A. I cannot recall having ever dealt with the staff of Globocnick.
Q. Well, now, defendant, he was the SS and Police Leader there. He was the big SS boss over there. Now you got your inmates to work you gravel pit at Treblinka from somewhere. Who did you get those from? You got those from Globocnick, didn't you?
A. As far as I can recall we got them from an agency in Warsaw. The plant manager of Auschwitz negotiated with that agency. I think it was the SS and Police Leader at Warsaw.
Q. Was it Krueger?
A. I don't know the name.
Q. Well, you remember when you were proposing that you set up your operation at Roemhild you mentioned the operation at Treblinka and told Pohl how nice the operation was and that you were using inmates other than those in the concentration camp.
Don't you know that those inmates came from Treblinka and don't you know they were Jews?
A. I only know that the workers who had worked for some time at Treblinka came from a labor camp, they were whether Poles or Jews or any other nationals I don't know. This was not evident from the reports of the Auschwitz plant we received.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess, Mr. Mc Haney.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for 15 minutes.