A: The central area was Eastern upper Silesia, on which the whole enterprise was based.
PRESIDENT: That is what I meant, the principle plant, the central plant was in upper Silesia?
A: Yes.
PRESIDENT: All right.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q: Were the factories which had been leased, had they been confiscated?
A: Some of them, yes.
Q: What factories had been confiscated?
A: Those in Eastern Galicia.
Q: Who had done the confiscating?
A: The Russian State. Here we had the same conditions that applied in the Bialystok area.
Q: When did Russian do the confiscating?
A: When it took over the area, by the end of 1939, for the Russian administration.
Q: Who became the owner?
A: The Russian State.
Q: What measures were taken by the German authorities?
A: The government in Lemberg established a trusteeship agency, and that agency had the task to handle economic life and commerce in that area. For that purpose it appointed trustees for the various enterprises. In some cases the enterprises were even leased. Negotiations were carried out one day whether or not a general trusteeship agency was to be established in that area for the construction terms. These negotiations did not lead to a result.
The trusteeship agency of the Government in Galicia prepared the lease contract. These two contracts had been made for a very short period of time, that normally they would have been terminated by the end of the war. Therefore, the normal period of time of five years, which is observed usually as the minimum time for a lease contract has been deviated from and a shorter period of time was substituted.
Q From whom was it that the Klinker Cement, G.m.b.H., leased the enterprise?
A From the Trusteeship Agency of the Government in Galicia.
Q Did the Klinker Concrete G.m.b.H., administer seized factories in the Eastern areas?
A No. You cannot call that a seizure. Apart from the leased factories to which I have just referred, the Klinker Concrete Company leased a factory for fire proof products. That factory had been deserted by its owners and it was taken over for administration by the Trusteeship Agency in Cracow. It was administered by a Trustee Chief, or, I believe, there were about three trustees successively, for conditions in that factory were extremely difficult, because it was located in a difficult situation from the point of view of transportation and communications. And from the trusteeship administration in Cracow the factory was leased by the Klinker Cement.
Q Please tell us very briefly the figure and equally briefly the legal status of the various factories owned by the Klinker Concrete, G.m.b.H.
A The Klinker Concrete factory was the owner or part owner of two factories, the Golleschauer Portland Cement, A.G., of which it owned 89%, and the Prago Construction, A.G., which is again a factory producing construction material, of which both Klinker and Golleschauer owned 54% together. Then the Klinker Concrete Factory had leased certain factories in Galicia, the plant for fire proof products in Scarbina it had leased from the Trusteeship Agency in Cracow and the concrete factory in Streenicz was leased from the Eastern German Chemical Works, and, for a short period of time, it had the trusteeship administration of the Krejsa plant in Stankau near Pilsen.
Q Was the employment of inmates intended when the Klinker Concrete, G.m.b.H., was erected?
A No.
Q When Golleschau was acquired, did you intend to employ inmates?
A No.
Q Where is Golleschau located?
A In upper Silesia in the Teschen District.
Q How was the Golleschau factory acquired?
A The representatives of the Swiss Bank who owned the shares, had as early as the summer 1940 started negotiations with the aim to sell their shares. We concluded these negotiations by the beginning of 1942.
Q Did you or Pohl seize any factories and enterprises in the Government General?
A No, as far as I can speak about my own sphere of work, no.
Q Did you, or any of the firms under your control, carry out the seizure or confiscation in the Government General, or, at least, did you cause such things to take place?
A No.
Q Please look at Document NO-1006, which is Exhibit 449, and it is in Volume 16 on page 88 of the English book, page 86 in the German Book. It concerns the taking over of the brick works of Bonarka. Who administered the Bonarka Brick Works?
A It was not administered at all at that time, but it came under the assets administration.
THE PRESIDENT: Who signed this document?
THE WITNESS: I signed that myself. It was, as far as its assets were concerned, it was administered by the Trusteeship Agency in Cracow.
Q (By Dr. Gawlik) Was the Trusteeship Agency of the Government General in Cracow part of the WVHA?
A No.
Q To whom was the Trusteeship Agency subordinated?
A Under Governor General Frank.
Q Was that Brickworks ever taken over?
A No.
Q Were inmates of a forced labor camp employed as it was intended in the document?
A No.
Q Therefore, what the document says was never realized, either by you or Office W-II?
A No.
Q When for the first time there in one of your enterprises any inmates employed?
A In the spring of 1943.
Q Prior to that time were there any inmates employed in any of your factories?
A No.
Q In how many enterprises which belonged to Office W-II, of which you were in charge, were inmates employed after that period of time?
A In one enterprise.
Q How many enterprises were at that time part of W-II?
AAlmost 400.
Q What was the enterprise in which inmates were employed?
A The Golleschauer concrete Factory.
Q Where was your agency located at that time?
A In Posen.
Q How far is it from Posen to Golleschauer?
AAbout 300 kilometers.
Q Was the concrete factory in Golleschauer administered by the Klinker Concrete, G.m.b.H.?
A No.
Q What was the legal status between Klinker Cement, G.m.b.H., and the Portland Cement, A.G., which employed the inmates?
A The Klinker Concrete, G.m.b.H., was the main share holder of the company. Later on, that was in the summer of 1943, the General Meeting decided to have what was known as a "organ contract" between the plants. The company was an independent enterprise and had its own officials under it. I was the Chairman and a qualified engineer was also the work manager. The Chairman of the Augsichtsrat was Herr Pohl.
Q What did you do in your capacity as a member of the Vorstand of the Portland Concrete, A.G.?
A What I did was mainly concerned with the handling of the more fundamental problems. You have to make a difference here between the AG as an enterprise and the actual plant. Part of the enterprise was also the administration of the capital. The enterprise owned still 27% of the shares, Prago Construction Factory also 5% of Upper Silesian Concrete Factory and as to liabilities, it owned to the Swiss Bank 2.7 million Swiss Franks.
Q Who was the works manager of the Portland Cement A.G. in Golleschau?
A The technical member of the Vorstand, Diplom Engineer Goebel.
Q What were the tasks of the works manager?
A The works manager is the man who is in charge of the technical management and in particular the social welfare of the employees of the plant. His hours and duties become clear from the law regulating national work.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q What camp did your Colleschau concentration camp inmates come from?
A From Auschwitz.
Q Were they Jews?
A I'm afraid I can't tell you about that. There may have been Jews among them.
Q Now you are certain that in your plants in Poland you had only voluntary free workers.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS (continued):
A Yes, if you understand by free workers what we understood it to mean in Germany.
Q I understand that.
A That means a worker who lives with his family but whose work is under certain obligations. He must report to the labor office and will be assigned by the labor exchange to certain factories.
Q I understand that. But that is the only kind of labor that you employed in conquered Poland in any of these plants?
A Yes, Sir.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q How often did you visit Golleschau while inmates were working there?
A Two or three times.
Q Can you give us a reason why you only went two or three times?
A The plant worked more or less independently. The reason being that it had a legal status of its own and also I had a co-manager. It was really the only enterprise where I had a second c-manager or coGerman. Also Goebel wanted to handle all matters pertaining to the plant. He had insisted on that when joining us. He really wanted to be the works manager and I had this right ceded to him.
Q Would it have been feasible for you to deal with all the details of the Golleschau plant, witness?
A Of course, that wouldn't have been feasible. For instance, if I had the chance to visit the plant two or three or perhaps four times, and especially then I dealt with all matters concerned with my immediate sphere of duties, I had on those occasions carried out a general inspection of the plant, but any details, of course, I could not investigate. I did not have the expert knowledge for that. I am not a technician.
Q What Goebel did, in other words, was to run the factory in Golleschau?
A No. He was also the Procurist of the Klinker Cement G.m.b.H., and for instance, on some occasions I sent him to Bialostok to check up on the chalk pit where he went once or twice. As far as I know he also worked for the Fire Proof Factory in Scavina, but that was at a distance of only 80 or 100 kilometers from Golleschau and he had the technical supervision, but as a matter of principle he lived and worked for the Golleschau plant.
Q Who assisted Goebel in running the Golleschau works?
A The works had its own management both in Administrative and technical matters. There was a so-called sub-manager and, too, a number of department chiefs, foreman, a few commercial employees, chemists, and all such employees as you would find in an independent concrete factory.
Q In how far did you have any actual influence on the management of Golleschau?
A On the management, that is to say on the works management, I exercised no influence at all.
Q Did you order that inmates should work in Golleschau?
A No.
Q Who gave the order?
AAt that time I and Goebel discussed the fact that we wanted to close down the factory and that decision on the part of the management I communicated to Pohl in his capacity as chairman of the Board, requesting him to give us his approval. Herr Pohl turned this down because he said we must produce concrete, as it was important for the military situation.
Q Did you request or suggest that inmates be employed?
A No. I said that I had requested to have the works closed down.
Q Why did you recommend that Golleschau should be closed down for the duration of the War?
A The employees, the workers of the plant, were almost exclusively Germans and a large number of the actual workers were by the beginning of 1943 called up to do military service.
We were therefore, short of laborers and hence the difficulties to continue production.
Q Now if you as a member of the Vorstand suggested to close down the factory did you not thereby damage the interest of the Klinker Concrete G.m.b.H.?
A No, I don't think so and I can prove that.
Q Will you give us briefly your reasons in order to make your statements credible?
A When I purchased the enterprise, or purchased the majority of shares, I expected that during the War the factory might have to be closed down and that was part of my calculations. Therefore, when we drew up the Purchase contract I expressly provided that the interest on the purchase price be calculated only on the production basis. If nothing was being produced no interest need be paid. Also, I had inserted a clause in this contract that the old debt which the concrete factory had in Switzerland which was not too heavily burdened with interest, should then become subject of new negotiations. In that respect also I would have saved money had the factory been closed down. On the other hand, once the factory was closed down if this was caused by the military developments, I could demand from the German Reich what we called compensation for a closed down factory and that compensation would have covered my expenses which would have incurred had the factory been closed down, which became necessary because of care for the machines and equipment. Moreover it was to be expected that the so-called deliveries and taxes on them from the concrete syndicate would have been paid by the concrete syndicate to the enterprise. As I remember, this amounted to 1 to 2 marks per ton. As the quota of the syndicate amounted to 210,000 tons the enterprise, if it had been closed down, would have been able, after all expenses had been covered, to receive a compensation or profit of about two to three hundred thousand marks.
I believe that is an amount which would not only have made it possible to have reasonable interest on the capital but would have made it possible to arrange for deposits.
Q Did you, therefore, have any interest, commercially speaking, that the Golleschau works should continue to operate?
A No.
Q What did Herr Pohl answer when you made your suggestion to close down the factory?
A Herr Pohl decided that the plant must continue to operate because concrete production was an urgent necessity and he ordered that concentration camp inmates should be used.
Q What was the channel of command once it was decided that inmates should be used for Folleschau?
A It started from Herr Pohl, then went via office Group D II, that is to Standartenfuehrer Maurer, to the commandant of the concentration camp Auschwitz and from there to the labor allocation leader. The labor allocation leader then contacted the mangers of the factories and decided how many inmates would be used, where they could be billeted, etc.
Q. Did you give any orders or directives for the employment of inmates in the Golleschau plant?
A. No.
Q. Were you in a position to become part of the channel of command which you just described and prevent that inmates should be used?
A. No.
Q. Can you give us an explanation?
A. Not militarily nor under commercial law would I have the possibility to prevent that. I cannot imagine what I could have done or how I could have done it.
Q. Were inmates in concentration camps used only for that reason that the Golleschau plant was part of the Klinker Concrete G.m.b.H. and therefore part of Office Group W-II?
A. No, I don't believe so. I know that the works would not have been closed down if it had been a purely private enterprise, that is to say, if a majority of shares had still belonged to the Swiss bank or a German business man. If a factory was to be closed down in Germany during the war, it was necessary to have permission by the agencies in charge of German economic life. That permission was always withheld in the case of concrete factories or given at least very infrequently because the requirement for concrete was extremely high because of the air raids of the German cities.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take the afternoon recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Witness, your last answer to the question was that the only reason that inmates were used in Golleschau was namely because the enterprise was part of the Klinker Cement G.m.b.H. and therefore part of Office D-II. Do you have anything to add to your answer?
A. Yes, indeed, I do. At the time, that is early in 1943, I had found out through discussions which I had with industrialists in Upper-Silesia that a whole number of industrial enterprises in Upper-Silesia were employing inmates for work. For instance, it was said that the Reichsbahn Repair Works was employing inmates, and that the I.G. Farben also were using the inmates for labor. Those inmates therefore were sent through the labor office, or then through the Landesarbiletsamt, or the District Labor Office into labor allocation. I also know that a regulation coming from the Four Year Plan provided explicitly that construction material companies had the duty to employ a certain percentage of inmates, if there was a lack of workers. Therefore, independently as to who owned the enterprises at Golleschau, based on the organization of the German labor market, it was not possible that I prevented the employment of inmates.
Q. Did you have the possibility on the basis of the employment ordered by the defendant Pohl to resign from Office W-II?
A. No, I didn't. I was a soldier, and I had to stay on my position to which I had been assigned. The same, however, applied to all civilian workers who, in the same manner, were subjected to control, should they decide to change their working place. They simply couldn't walk out on the job, if they didn't like their work.
Q. Who was it that assigned the inmates at Golleschau?
A. The commander of concentration camp Auschwitz, respectively deputy.
Q. Did you or one of your subordinates in the Office W-II participate in this?
A. You mean in the selection of inmates?
Q. No, in the labor assignment of inmates.
A. No.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik. How far was Auschwitz from the Golleschau?
A. Approximately 60 to 80 kilometers, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, where did the inmates who were sent from Auschwitz to Golleschau, where did they live? Was there a camp at Golleschau?
A. Yes, Your Honor, I wanted to describe that more closely.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Yes, that was going to be my question, anyway. Where were these inmates billeted?
A. The inmates were billeted within the area of the plant in Golleschau in a massive building. This had been established for that purpose, that is to say, the windows were enlarged, ceilings were erected, certain partitions were established so that you had a kitchen, a living room, and a special room for stocks for food and clothing, a dental station, the toilets, and washrooms, the day room, and the places where they spent the night were separated from each other also.
Q. Who was responsible for the billeting of the inmates?
A. The billeting was taken care of by the works manager of Golleschau in cooperation with the camp administration of Auschwitz.
Q. Who was it that installed the billets for the inmates?
A. The works manager of Golleschau in cooperation with the commander in Auschwitz.
Q. Did you have to participate in this?
A. No.
Q. Who was in charge of the camp administration in Auschwitz?
A. The inspectorate of the concentration camps.
Q. And later on?
A. Later on Amtsgruppe D.
Q. Did you have the possibility to give orders and instructions to the camp administration in Auschwitz?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. What kind of work did the inmates have to do?
A. The inmates worked in the chalk pit, and they also worked in the construction of small train tracks which let to the new chalk pit.
Q. Apart from those inmates were any free workers also employed?
A. Yes indeed.
Q. What was the relationship in figures between free workers and inmates?
A. As far as I was informed, there were approximately 300 to 350 free workers working in that plant at the time. At the beginning there were approximately 500 to 600 inmates. I believe that figure was increased by a few hundred later on; without my having been consulted about this. In any case I learned from the documents that they kept on speaking about one thousand inmates, a figure which in any case, according to my recollection, did not exist at the beginning.
Q. Did the inmates have to do the same kind of work as the free workers?
A. The inmates fundamentally speaking did the same work as the free workers whose place they had taken. In any case, the work was not at all more difficult than that of the free workers. The most difficult work in a cement factory is the one carried out at the revolving stove which is used there.
The work at that revolving stove is particularly difficult due to the fact that this heat which emanates from this stove sort of stuns the workers. That work, basically speaking, was only carried out by free workers because it was a special job which problem could only be solved by skilled workers.
Q. What was the working time?
A. An the works manager told me, the working hours were 8 to 10 hours a day, depending on the season.
Q. Did the working time differ much for the inmates compared with free workers?
A. No, not that I know of, nor is it possible because the work of the inmates had to be supervised by the special foremen in the plants, and we couldn't, after all, add any new shifts.
Q. Witness, will you take a look at Document No-1290, this is Exhibit number 60, document book number 14, on page 46 in the German document books, and on page 49 of the English document book. According to this document, the daily working hours were to amount to 11 hours a day. Don't the contents of this document contradict your testimony, witness?
A. No, that is not quite correct. First of all I didn't receive this letter on an informational basis because the distribution list does not contain Office W-II. As far as the remaining portion is concerned, it is explicitly stated in the contents that there are exceptions which applied to the outside detachments; and I believe that the labor assignment of Golleschau was probably part of this exception as stated in the document.
Q. Let me show you your affidavit, witness, which is dated 16 of January 1947. That is Document NO-1566, Exhibit 19 in Document Book I page 111. You stated there that it is also possible that a few inmates worked 11 hours under circumstances.
What do you have to say about that, witness?
A. The way I wrote that sentence shows that I didn't have any knowledge about it, that inmates did in fact work 11 hours a day. That is upon the interrogator's suggestion, according to which, after all I wouldn't have acted against an order as issued by me Reichsfuehrer, I left that possibility open. That is shown by that sentence, and I had no misgivings whatsoever to let that assumption on my part remain in the affidavit. In any case, it is very difficult for me to imagine how a cement factory where group work was decisive and not the individual inmates for a longer period of time than ten hours.
Q. Who was it that fixed the occupation of the inmates?
A. Based on certain remarks made by the works manager, I know that the works manager only fixed what kind of work had to be done. The details of employment in any case were taken care of by the camp leader of the outside detachment or by the camp Eldest who was an inmate.
Q. Did you ever issue any orders about the employment of inmates?
A. No, I couldn't do that because I didn't have the authority to issue orders with reference to the camp. Of course, during one of my occasional visits to Golleschau, I spoke to the camp commander, and I actually told him explicitly that he should treat the inmates decently, and that he should not demand more work from them than they actually could do. I was reassured on that repeatedly ---
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Witness, when you speak of the camp commander you mean the labor camp commander of Golleschau -- not the camp commander at Auschwitz?
WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. I didn't know him. I am always speaking about the manager of the outside detachment who was in Golleschau.
At the time I was also told that the relationship between the guard personnel and the inmates was approximately the same as between a soldier and his superior. The superior after all has not the right to beat his subordinate, not even touch him. There was a strict order to that effect which, from time to time, was read to these people. Therefore, I was told I could be absolutely assured as far as that went.
BY DR. GAWLIK (Counsel for defendants Volk and Bobermin)
Q. What was being paid for the work done by the inmates?
A. fifty pfennigs per day were paid for the auxiliary workers, and one mark fifty for the so-called skilled workers.
Q. Who received the money?
A. The payment was either made to the camp administration of Auschwitz or to Amtsgruppe D. I couldn't tell you that for sure because I never did see such a payment slip, nor did I ever pay that money myself. The Works Administration did that.
Q. Who did?
Q. I said the administration of the plant at Golleschau.
Q. Did the enterprise have the right to pay to the inmates directly?
A. No, that was not possible because that would not have complied with current regulations.
Q. Who was responsible for the food of the inmates?
A. The man in charge of his outside detachment, respectively the camp administration at Auschwitz.
Q. What do you know about the food of the inmates at Golleschau?
A. During my visits, of course, I was especially interested and particularly interested in the food situation, because food is a matter which interests a human being more than anything else. At the time I was told that the inmates received the basic ration due to the camps, and also so-called heavy-workers' rations. This heavyworkers' ration, I was told, was just the same as that for civilian workers. Apart from that , the works management on its own accord provided potatoes, vegetables, soups, carrots, mineral water, and, to a small extent, fruit juices for sick inmates. Furthermore, tobacco and cigarettes were purchased in large amounts.
At the time I was told that the tobacco allocation was said to be even greater than that for the civilian population.
I will gladly tell you about a small incident which at the time probably reassured me best of a sufficient food supply received by the inmates. On a visit which I made -- I believe it was the second one I made -- I saw at the entrance to the building where the inmates lived, two large barrels of carrots. Those carrots had been cleaned and out into small pieces. I asked them what this vegetable was doing out there; after all, it was to be taken into the kitchen, was it not. Whereupon the camp eldest said, no, "These raw carrots will be eaten by the inmates extra because they contained vitamins." Thereupon I told him, "This is probably allocated, isn't it?"Because after, there would be difficulties if it wasn't, Whereupon I was told no, "There is no trouble about that; the inmates are not too keen about carrots."
If I look back at my own captivity now, I really have to say that we would eat raw, yellow carrots which would occasionally be sent to the camp, and, as a matter of fact, we would look upon them as a delicacy. I believe that at the time, both from the statements made by the camp commander and the inmates, that the inmates , in any case, were not hungry.
Q. Did you gain the impression during your visits that the plant manager at Golleschau was worried about the fate of the inmates?
A. Yes, I did , because every time I saw him he mentioned what beautiful and special things he had gotten for inmates, and here again let melet me tell you an incident which occured and which gave me quite a bit of trouble. When the first inmate detachments were detailed for work, the inmate shower rooms had not yet been completed yet. At the time the plant manager permitted the inmates to go and make use of the general bath there. The area commander of the party there heard about this fact, whereupon he scolded the works manager by telling him that he would report him by mixing his civilian workers with inmates, and he said that he would see to it that he would lose his job as a works manager. That, of course, would have meant quite some trouble for my colleague who was a member of the Vorstand. He spoke to me and I wrote a letter in a draft which Herr Pohl had written to Gauleiter Bracht in Upper Silesia in which Herr Pohl was explaining quite clearly his attitude towards this matter, namely, that he had nothing against the use of these bath rooms commonly by both inmates and civilian workers, whereupon no trial took place against the works manager.
Q. Which was the impression that you gained during your visits about the working - and living conditions of the inmates at Golleschau?
A. I really had the impression that the inmates were not being
A. I really had the impression that the inmates were not being mal-treated. I was only once at the working place. The inmates, of course, looked around and saw who the visitor was. None of the guards or the foremen or the capos did anything in order to force the workers to go to work. He probably just permitted them on one occasion to just pause for a minute or two. As far as I could see, they were handling small pieces of chalk which had been exploded out of the wall. You had small pieces of chalk there which had been cut into small pieces and which were being thrown on special wagons. It is quite clear that if you come out of a nice home and you go into a camp it is a shock to a human being to experience such a thing. However, as I have quite a bit of experience, having been a prisoner for two years, I can tell you today, looking back upon it, that, as far as the billeting of inmates was concerned, the conditions in Golleschau were better than those which I experienced.
Q. Witness, you are speaking about your experiences while you were a prisoner for two years. Of course there was a difference between your having been a prisoner and the fact that they had to work in Golleschau. You did not have to work.
A. As a prisoner of war, I did not have the duty to work because I was an officer. However, after I had been released formally from my camp, from being transferred to an internment camp, I received a paper, and I had to turn in that piece of paper. Then I had to accept my warrant of arrest. Well, anyway, when I became a civilian internee there was a so-called "duty" to work in the camp. We discussed the question once in a while and the camp commander thereupon issued an order that there was no order to work -- but a "duty" to work.
I am not a lawyer and in any case I can't imagine the difference between those two terms. I simply don't believe there is a difference.
Q. But work which you had to do was easier than the work that had to be done by the concentration camp inmates which you saw working.