Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY MR. McHANEY:
Q Defendant, was the gravel operation of DEST in Auschwitz continued up until the time the camp was evacuated?
AAs I remember it, yes. In winter it never operated at all.
Q Did you use any inmates in the operation of the gravel works other than the Jews you have told us about in the office?
A Temporarily we used a column of inmates to build the railroad track.
Q That is all?
A Yes. In the gravel pit itself, not.
Q Do you know whether the workers on the railroad were Jews?
A No, I don't know.
Q When did the gravel plant at Treblinka close down?
A I am unable to give you the date. All I know is that we had repeated transport difficulties there, and the operation could not be continued. Reports sent by Auschwitz on behalf of Treblinka pointed that out.
Q Can't you give us a rough estimate as to when the operation ceased at Treblinka?
A. I think in 1944 it was still operating.
Q. You didn't have any difficulties when the Jews were removed from the plants surrounding Lublin in November 1943. Are you sure that is when the Treblinka Gravel Works did not shut down?
A. In Lublin, I know nothing about it.
Q. Are you sure that the Treblinka Gravel Works did not * shut down because the Jews were taken out ?
A. I never heard anything about such a matter.
Q. Did you have a plant manager at Treblinka?
A. Yes. He was under the works manager of Auschwitz.
Q. And he was at Treblinka from 1940 until 1944?
A. He was there in '43 and '44. It was in '43 that we leased the land.
Q. Now, you mentioned about camps A and camps B in your direct testimony at Treblinka?
A. Yes, I saw that from the documents.
Q. Well, you didn't know anything about Camp A then in 1943 and 1944?
A. I only heard about one labor camp at the time.
Q. And how far was the DEST Gravel, Works from that camp?
A. About two or three kilometers. Then I visited that camp, no dredging machine was there. It was brought there only much later.
The gravel pit had ceased operation at the time.
Q. Did you ever visit this camp at Treblinka yourself?
A. When I visited it, I talked to the commandant in his office.
Q. Or were you actually inside the camp?
A. The commandant's office was at the entrance of the camp.
Q. Didn't you know that Polish Jews and Jews from the east were incarcerated in that camp ?
A. No.
Q. You didn't know anything about that?
A. All I heard was that inmates were there. From what categories they came, I had no idea.
Q. And your testimony is that you knew nothing whatever about the extermination of the Jews in Germany?
A. No.
Q. You knew that they were being persecuted?
A. Yes, and that they were subject to restrictions.
Q. Well, did you know that they were being transported and being placed in concentration camps?
A. As I said before, I knew that the Jews were committed to concentration camps.
Q. You knew nothing about mass transportations of Jews?
A. No.
Q. What about your statement and the letter signed by you, Document NO-1278, prosecution Exhibit 440. It is in Book 16. That is your letter concerning the diamond cutting operation in Herzogenbush and the proposal to transfer it to Gross-Rosen?
A. I didn't hear the last word. Where was it being transferred to?
Q. Gross-Rosen.
A. No, not Gross-Rosen.
Q. Bergen-Belsen.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have that letter before you?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you see on page one of the original where you are summarizing the development, the date March 1944, you state that the Reichsfuehrer-SS orders the deportation of Jews from the Netherlands?
A. It doesn't say so here.
Q. What does it say there ?
A. What it says here is March 1944. The last Jewish diamond cutters have been transported away. I should say first of all about this document that although I signed it, I didn't draw it up.
Q. Just a minute, witness, we are not interested in that right now. Let's get this translation straight. Are you reading from 18 May 1944 or March 1944? My translation has a date of March 1944.
A. March 1944.
Q. And my translation says "Reichsfuehrer -SS orders the deportation of Jews from the Netherlands."
A. It doesn't say so here.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's see this book now.
MR. MCHANEY: Will you pass the German up?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if this German follows the original, it doesn't say what the English copy says at all.
MR. MCHANEY: Well, Your Honor, I suggest we postpone the question until such time as we can have a photostatic copy of the German brought down. I find it difficult to believe that the translators could interpolate something of that sort if it doesn't appear in the original.
THE PRESIDENT: The entry under March 1944 in the German document says: "Inspection of the diamond cutting works at Herzogenbush by the Reichsfuehrer-SS."
MR. MCHANEY: If the Tribunal please, the only conclusion that I can draw at the present time is that in cutting the German stencil, they omitted one of the notations. Now, the one that you have just read appears opposite February 1944 in the English, and the one which apparently appears under March 1944 in your German copy appears opposite 18 March 1944 in my translation. Is there any notation for 18 May '44 in that document?
THE PRESIDENT: No.
MR. MCHANEY: Well, I must conclude then that they omitted the notation for March 1944.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think it is important now to find out what the original says, don't you?
MR. MCHANEY: Indeed I do. If the Clerk of the court could be dispatched to the document archives at this time and bring back Document NO-1278, prosecution Exhibit 440, I think we could probably clarify the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
BY MR. MCHANEY:
Q. Defendant, we will defer any further reference to that --
A. May I say something about that, please? As I remember it, I believe I once compared the photostatic copy to this text, and I could not find any difference between this and the German text.
Q. We will resolve that problem very shortly.
Now, let's --- suppose we just defer any more comment on that document until the original arrives.
Now, defendant, you know now that some three and a half million Jews were killed in Auschwitz between 1942 and the end of the war, you know that now, don't you defendant?
A. Yes, I heard that here.
Q. Well, you are satisfied that is substantially correct, are you not?
A. I have to assume that, yes.
Q. Yet your testimony is that you knew nothing whatever about this mass murder of people in Auschwitz when you visited a plant located several kilometers from there, when you had a plant manager who was continuously resident there for a number of years, you still want this Tribunal to believe that you knew nothing whatever about the mass extermination of Jews in Auschwitz?
A. This is the truth.
Q. And you also had plant manager in Treblinka for a period of at least a year and a half, and that you yourself used inmates furnished by a labor camp in Treblinka. You want the Tribunal to believe that you knew nothing about the mass extermination of Jews in the murder camps at Treblinka?
A. On direct examination I have stated that from the documents submitted here, I saw that there were two camps there. And this document expressly states that in the second camp which was established later, these exterminations were carried out.
Q. Well, defendant, I just marvel at the ability of the SS in Auschwitz and Treblinka to do away with millions of people , gasing them, transporting them in, cremating their bodies, shipping out valuables, and someone within an area or two or three kilometers of that extermination not knowing something about it, but that is what you ask the Tribunal to believe, isn't it?
A. Nobody told me anything about it.
Q. What was your connection with OSTI?
A. I had no connection.
Q. How is it you ordered Fischer to go and audit the books of OSTI in the beginning of 1944 if you had no connection with it?
A. On direct examination I explained, Mr. Prosecutor, that I did not order Fischer to go. I merely gave him leave to carry out an auditing mission which Dr. Horn wanted him to do.
Q. Well, Fischer states in his audit that you ordered him to go. Fischer was wrong , was he?
A. It says expressly in the document that Obersturmbannfuehrer Mumenthey received the order. I merely transmitted the order on. I was sort of a messenger, nothing else.
Q. I see. Why were you made the messenger in that case?
A. Fischer was a member of DEST, he worked there. If somebody needed Fischer for an assignment, he had to ask me first because the auditing department was in my charge.
Q. Well, did you receive a copy of this audit , this report by Fischer?
A. I did not receive a copy, nor did I ever see the auditing report itself.
Q. You knew nothing about OSTI?
A. No. All I knew was the fact of its existence. What it did and so forth, I did not know.
Q. And you don't know that they were utilizing Jewish property confiscated in Poland, you didn't know that they were using Jewish workers up to November 1943 when they were all killed, you didn't know that?
A The duties and tasks of Qsti were unknown to me. At a later date DEST took over a a stone quarry from Osti through the works manager in Auschwitz, that is all.
Q Yes, I was about to come to that. When they liquidated Osti, DEST took over the Bliczin quarry, didn't it?
A DEST took over the stone quarry of Bliczin, yes.
Q What sort of workers did you use there?
AAs much as I can remember from the report, we had both civilian workers and inmates there.
Q What kind of inmates? They were Polish inmates, weren't they, defendant?
A I couldn't see that from the reports. All it said is that there were inmates.
Q You never made any inquiry into the nationality of the inmates used by your enterprises, is that right?
A Certainly, but the Bliczin enterprise I never saw myself.
Q Never went to Bliczin? You just took it over in the dark?
A No, the works managers had full authority to run this extremely small enterprise.
Q And you knew nothing about this dissolution of Osti? You knew nothing about Fischer's report though you passed down the order sending him there to audit the books?
A What the assignment was about, I did not know.
Q And you still maintain that you knew nothing whatever about the murder of the Jews?
THE PRESIDENT: He said that. That has been his unequivocal answer.
MR. MC HANEY: If the Tribunal please, I have completed my examination with the exception of this document, the Herzogenbosch diamond document. I don't know that I need put any further questions on that; I think the document will speak for itself. The defendant has testified that he did not know of the transportation of Jews, other than individual cases.
I think when we receive the document we can clear up the translation.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q When, where, and under what circumstances, were you arrested after the collapse?
A I was arrested on the fifth of October of last year.
Q Where?
A In Hepen, near Bielefeld.
Q Did you destroy the records of Amt W-I prior to the collapse?
AA large part of the files of the Main Administration in Oranienburg was destroyed in an air-raid early in April, 1945.
The rest remained there.
Q You did not destroy any of the remaining records by burning, or otherwise destroying them?
A No.
Q Where did you leave the records that you last had in your custody?
A Such files as remained behind were left behind in Oranienburg. My personal files I took along to Neurohlau when I received the order to report there, and they remained there. I kept nothing myself.
Q What did you do with your personal files?
A They were left in Naurohlau. I handed them over to the man in charge of Bohemia.
Q Did you leave any instructions to anyone at Oranienburg about the disposition of the records that you left there?
A I gave the order that these files should be kept as far as they were still available.
Q To whom did you give that order?
AAuditor Fischer remained behind, and co-manager Schondorff, co-manager Schwarz and myself went to Neurohlau.
Q Was the camp evacuated at the time that you left?
A No, the camp was in the same status as it always was.
Q And the camp was taken over by the Allies intact, without being evacuated?
A I don't know that from my own knowledge because I was no longer there at that time.
Q How long had you been gone before the camp was taken over by the Allies?
A I left by the middle of April -- Oranienburg, that is?
Q Yes.
A Middle of April. I left Oranienburg in the middle of April.
Q And the camp was taken over when?
A I don't know, I am afraid.
MR. MC HANEY: We now have the photostatic copy of NO-1278, Prosecution Exhibit 440, and I think it shows that the English translation is correct. I will pass it to the witness, and he can verify it.
BY MR. MC HANEY:
Q Defendant, what does it say in this letter signed by you under the date March, 1944?
A It says there, "RF-SS has ordered that Jews must be deported from the Netherlands."
Q Now, defendant, two other question. Was your office located in the concentration camp Oranienburg?
A No.
Q I thought that your offices were destroyed -- your regular offices and that you had to move into a barracks in Oranienburg?
A Yes.
Q Well, then your office was within the camp at Oranienburg.
A No, the office was immediately next to the area of the plant Oranienburg.
Q Was your Office in such a position so that you were able to observe inmates both in the plant and going to and from the concentration camp?
A From my room I could not see that sort of thing. Otherwise, I always saw the inmates who worked in the plant whenever I visited the plant.
Q And you visited the plant until the time you left, in April, 1945?
AAt that time the plant was nearly entirely destroyed.
Q Well, did you visit it though, such as it was operating? Was it operating then, were inmates working there?
A Yes.
Q Did you visit all the other plants of DEST during the year 1945?
A No, that was impossible because transportation was extremely confused.
Q What plants did you visit in 1945?
AAs I remember it, I went to Neuengamme and Flossenburg, and St. Georgen. I am not quite sure about the last one. That might have been by the end of 1944.
Q Did you notice the horrible physical condition of the inmates in 1945, as depicted in the motion picture which you saw as an exhibit in this case?
A The films I saw were not like the scenes I saw myself.
Q You observed no general physical deterioration among the inmates working for DEST in 1945?
A We had our difficulties with feeding them, of course, but the conditions shown in the film, I must repeat myself here, I never saw myself.
Q Well, forget the film. Did you notice a general deterioration in physical condition in 1945 among the inmates? Yes, or no.
A Yes, I saw a deterioration, but not on a large scale.
Q That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other questions by defense counsel?
DR. FROESCHMANN (Counsel for Mummenthey): May it please the Tribunal, may I compare the photostatic copy and the document in my document book?
Mr. President, I have no further questions to put to the witness after this cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Questions by other defense counsel?
The witness may be removed by the Marshal.
(Witness excused)
DR. BELZER (Counsel for Sommer): May it please the Court, the Prosecution yesterday, in their cross-examination of witness Mummenthey, submitted an affidavit by somebody called Sanner. This was Exhibit 621. As this affidavit makes one assertion concerning the duties of defendant Sommer, I would like to ask the Court for permission to cross-examine Sanner. He lives in Munich and can come to Nurnberg any time at all. It is particularly paragraph 44 of this affidavit I am concerned with.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Sommer is not mentioned in paragraph 44. Oh, there are two paragraphs 44. Just a minute.
DR. BELZER: Yes, quite.
THE PRESIDENT: In view of the accusations in paragraph 44, you may have leave to call this witness Sanner for cross-examination. Will he come as a free witness at your request?
DR. BELZER: Yes, he is a free witness. He is at large and lives in Munich. I only want to cross-examine him.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you have the Tribunal's leave to call him as a witness.
DR. BELZER: Then I would like the court's permission, possibly, to ask the defendant Sommer on the witness stand once more and examine him on this point. The Prosecution have had this document since 25 April of this year. Defendant Sommer was on the witness stand four weeks ago. The Prosecution would have had full opportunity to put this matter to him at that time.
THE PRESIDENT: You need not argue the point, because you will have leave to call Sommer to the witness stand, of course.
DR. BELZER: I know for certain that the prosecution has a number of documents in its possession which were signed by Defendant Sommer. Defendant Sommer, in my presence, was examined on the contents of one of those documents, be were concerned there with orders by Defendant Sommer to the labor allocation officer of a concentration camp concerning the listing of inmates under a certain condition of a list which was to be submitted twice a month. I would like the Prosecution to be asked to submit the documents which they have in their possession, because these documents will confirm what Defendant Sommer himself has said on the witness stand, namely, that he only signed documents which were concerned with office routine and reports only where allocation of inmates was part of the office routine concerned in the monthly reports.
Mr. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, as I understand the procedure, any defense counsel can request the Tribunal to produce any document, the existence of which they know about. They must sufficiently identify the document so that some reasonable search can be made for it. I know of no procedure which prevents the defense counsel from requesting all documents bearing the name of Sommer or Pohl or anybody else. I know nothing about what defense counsel is speaking of, but I suggest he make his application and we will have time to look into it, if we do have it.
THE PRESIDENT: He is speaking of particular documents which were shown to the defendant in the course of an interrogation.
Mr. McHANEY: If he will file his application and identify the documents, we will have the Prosecution staff concerned with this matter I know nothing about it -- look into it, but if he will file his application they will look into it, and, if they exist, we will produce them -
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, file the usual application for the production of these documents and the court will aprove it.
DR. BELZER: To clear up this point, I might add that at that time I asked the interrogating officer what the documents were, what numbers these documents had. The number which was given to me was incorrect. I investigated the matter and I have attempted to get out this document, but I was unable to do that, because the number I was given was not correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you can refer to the documents as the ones which were shown to the witness in a certain interrogation. That will identify them.
The next witness who is listed is Dr. Max Winkler in defense of Bobermin, is that right?
DR. FROESCHMANN (Attorney for the Defendant Mummenthey): May it please the court, as counsel for Mummenthey, I have told the court that I wanted to produce one more witness called Plumberg. I shall forego calling this witness. Witness Winkler is a witness for Defendant Bobermin and he will only be called on behalf of Bobermin.
As far as my own case is concerned, it has come to a close as far as the examination of the witness is concerned. What is still lacking is documentary evidence, and, as the court has been so kind, it has been possible to have all my document books completed and I have just been informed the department concerned is just about to put the documents together into one book, so I would be in a position to submit this documentary evidence and thereby complete my own case, which I think would be in the interest of all of us, but that will not be possible this morning. I can only do so at two o'clock.
THE PRESIDENT: You may file your document books whenever they are ready, Dr. Froeschman, this afternoon, or whenever they are finished. As soon as your document books are filed your defense is in, is complete, is that right?
DR. FROESCHMAN: Yes, indeed, and I can submit the document books this afternoon to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Very good. Now do you want the Witness Winkler, Dr. Gawlik?
DR. GAWLIK: May it please the court, I could call the witness Winkler immediately, but I don't know whether -- I don't want to interrupt the case of my colleague Froeschmann, because he wants to submit his documentary evidence this afternoon, but that, of course, is entirely up to the court's ruling.
THE PRESIDENT: No, go ahead with Winkler, Dr. Froeschmann can submit the document books later. In fact, all he wants to do is to file the books, is that right, Dr. Froeschmann?
DR. FROESCHMANN: If the Tribunal please, it was my intention to just submit the books to the court without reading them, but that is, of course, not possible. They will not be ready before two o'clock. Therefore we have to interrupt.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, whenever your books are ready you merely want to submit them to the Tribunal.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Yes, quite. May it please the court, it is my intention to read this or that document from my document books to the court, or, at least, extracts from them, because, after all, I submit these documents instead of calling witnesses, and I think therefore, the over-all impression of Mummenthey will only be complete if I can read extracts from this or that document.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Bring in your document books as soon as they are ready, Dr. Froeschmann. Go ahead with your witness, Dr. Gawlik.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Very well, your Honor.
DR. GAWLIK (Attorney for Defendant Bobermin): I shall therefore now open the evidence in behalf on my client Dr. Bobermin and by permission of the Tribunal I should like to call as a witness, Dr. Max Winkler.
DR. MAX WINKLER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: Witness raise your right hand and repeat after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: Now you may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. GAWLIK:Q.- Witness, please give your full name.
A.- Max Winkler.
Q.- Tell the court briefly about your curriculum vitae.
A.- I was born on 7 September, 1975. I went to secondary school, then to a technical school. I became an official of the post office and then I became a municipal official. I became a burgermeister of Kraudenz and after the surrender of the City of Kraudenz after the first World War I went to Berlin. I had been elected the democratic deputy of the Prussian Constitutional Assembly. I worked in Berlin as an economic consultant of the Reich Government. This comes into the position of a trustee until the final collapse of the Reich.
Q. Witness, do you know anything about the legal aspects of the seized brick works in the incorporated Eastern territories?
A. Yes, they were administered by the Eastern German Building Material Company.
Q. On what is your knowledge based?
A. I was in charge of Main Trustee Department East in Berlin.
Q. How long were you in that position?
A. From the moment it was established in October 1939 until the collapse.
Q. Were the brick works in the incorporated Eastern territories seized or were the owners compensated?
A. I know nothing about a seizure. It is possible that some brick works were sold to somebody but then this was done on behalf of the man who actually sold them.
Q. Witness, will you please make a pause between the question and the answer. Who said that the works were to be confiscated?
A. These brick works were confiscated as almost all economic enterprises and private properties of Polish nationals were confiscated. First of all the military commanders pronounced something to be confiscated quite generally. Then the trustee agency was established which was done by a decree of 5 October 1939 at which time the right to confiscate was transferred to the Main Trustee Department East.
Q. How was it that the Main Trustee East administered these things?
A. The order which I have just named, the one of 5 October 1939, about the establishment of the Main Trustee Agency East about the administration of the economic objects.
This agency received - -
THE PRESIDENT: You want to say something, Dr. Gawlick?
DR. GAWLICK: I am just told that the word "confiscation" has been used, as a translation of "Beschlagnahme". Confiscation as we said before, should be translated by seizure. That means simply that it has actually been taken. In other words, the whole transaction has become distorted because the interpreter, although I talked with him in this connection, continues to translate "beschlagnahme" confiscated, but this is incorrect. The Court had ruled that it should be translated "seizure".
THE PRESIDENT: The record will indicate that where the word "confiscation" was used the word "seizure" will be submitted although the distinction, as a matter of fact, is not altogether clear. At least, the translation will be correct.
We are trying to learn the difference between "seizure" and "confiscation". It seems to us that when property is taken and kept and the owner is not paid for it that it doesn't make much difference whether you call it seizure or confiscation. The owner gets nothing and he never gets his property back. You might even inject a third term call it larceny.
DR. GAWLICK: If your Honors please, in the case of confiscation the property is taken away. I no longer own my property. If my watch is being confiscated I will never see it again. I have had it. If the watch is being seized by somebody, the Police, or somebody takes it, puts it down somewhere, and after some time when the seizure has been rescinded I can go and fetch my watch from the agency which has seized it.
I continue to remain the owner of the watch.
THE PRESIDENT: Even if you never get it back you still own it?
DR. GAWLICK: I continue to be the owner of the watch, yes, and I have a legitimate title under civil law. I still own the watch legally. The only difference is, that I am not allowed to wear the watch in my pocket. The seizure must be followed by a decision on the seizure - the seizure is only a temporary measure. Under German law something is seized if you don't know who actually owns the things the two persons disputing the article must fight a battle and the one who is the legal owner gets the article back. In war time the matter was that the owners of the brick works were not there - they had fled in most cases. The owners remained the owners as far as the legal titles were concerned and in order to maintain law and order because the population needed bricks and the workers employed there needed work the enterprises were seized but their owners still had full rights as the witness will testify to us in detail.
THE PRESIDENT: And it was in the case of the seizures that a trustee was chosen?
DR. GAWLICK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The trustee hold the property for the owner ?
DR. GAWLICK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: In case the owner lived and returned?
DR. GAWLICK: Yes. The trustee represented the owner, so to speak.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, of course, the owner doesn't know that but the trustee is to preserve the owner's rights in case he ever dares claim the property?
DR. GAWLICK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, now we understand everything.
BY DR. GAWLICK:
Q. Witness, please continue how it came about that the Main Trustee Department East came to administer these things?
A. At the beginning of October Goering called me to see him in his capacity as head of the Four Year Plan. He told me that as troops were about to leave Poland the economic life there had reached a state of confusion and chaos was about to reign. He wanted to establish an agency which should, if possible, bring order to these matters, bring back the economic life in a normal sense, and should take care of the most essential requirements of the population. He wanted to establish a trusteeship agency which would administer, on a trusteeship basis, these things. I asked him thereupon whether it was planned to have compensation given for the property of private persons if it should be taken away from them. Goering answered this in the affirmative. Then when on 5 October a directive was issued, namely, that the Main Trustee Department East should be established one passage said the compensation for civilians was being reserved.
Q. Was the seizure and the administration done for the purpose in order to maintain law and order in the incorporated Eastern territories?
A. According to what Field Marshal Goering told me that was the purpose of his order. He wanted to achieve thereby that a normal and orderly condition should be brought back which had disappeared because of the military situation, flight of the population, and other military events.