A.- Yes.
Q.- I shall confine myself on the whole to the affidavit in Volume XXIII, because it is in that affidavit where you say all these things which concern my client. First of all you said that the construction service in 1933 consisted of a building office in Dachau, is that correct?
A.- Yes. In 1933, on the 25th of July, I joined the Administrative Office, the Verwaltungs*mt, and at that time, the so-called construction department was founded. No actual building was being done by the office itself. It was purely office work.
Q.- How many people did you have in your department?
A.- I was alone.
Q.- You were alone? In your affidavit you described this building office as the central office. By a central office one usually means that other offices were subordinated to that office. Was Dachau the only building office in 1933?
A.- In 1933 I knew only of Dachau, the building office Dachau.
Q.- As you have said before, it was a very small office?
A.- It was only for the Dachau garrison at first.
Q.- In what year did Eirenschmalz join the construction service of the SS?
A.- I cannot give you the exact date. In 1935 I rejoined the Administrative Office in 1935 Eirenschmalz was there, roughly in the spring of '35 or perhaps in the last few months of 1934.
Q.- What was the position in 1935 concerning construction service?
A.- Eirenschmalz at that time was there and carried out repair work and maintenance work for these special SS units.
Q.- You mean the political units?
A.- Yes. I did not help him there. I merely worked on the place near Berchtesgaden nera Obersalzbcrg, some barracks for the guard units at Obersalzberg.
Q.- I would like to know first of all how the organization was in 1935. Was it still a small department which was still being built up?
A.- Yes, it was a small department, a construction department. Whether at that time Department V/4 existed, I don't know. I think that was later on, I think by the autumn of 1935 or the beginning of 1936.
Q.- How many people were working at that time in that department roughly? I know it goes back a decade.
A.- I can only recall that Eirenschmalz was there. Likewise the Dachau employees I would include in this department.
Q.- No, I shall speak about Dachau specially.
A.- I wouldn't know about anybody else.
A.- Your duties in 1935 were, as you told us, that you constructed barracks for these special units?
A.- Yes, the repair and maintenance work.
Q.- Not new constructions?
A.- They were buildings we had taken over in Obersalzberg there was a barrack and the new construction.
Q.- Were these tasks for the Verfuegungsgruppe, the special task unit?
A.- They weren't called special task unit yet at that time. I know it was for the guard companies, and I believe the chief of that company was Dietrich, or some such name.
Q.- In 1936 the first reorganization was carried out. Please describe how that was done, why it was done. I shall refresh your memory. Please take your affidavit, NO-4007, in Paragraph 17.
A.- Eirenschmalz -
Q.- Let me ask you a question first. You say at the end of that paragraph Eirenschmalz was the man in charge of the department but only organizationally, whereas all orders came from Pohl.
A.- That was at the time when the construction department was made into a main department.
Q.- What was the reason to make a main department?
A.- That was a purely organizational extension as things grew and develop.
Q.- In the administrative office was an organizational chart ever drawn up at the time?
A.- Several charts were drawn up at the time, or letters describing the organization. Whenever there was an additional extension a new organizational chart would be issued.
Q.- There are two possibilities; there is one organizational chart which would be transmitted to all the other departments, or there is the possibility that Pohl from occasion to occasion would give you orders and say, "We shall do this or that," and that you could also describe as an organizational chart Witness, this chart which you have reconstructed from your memory, do you know this plan?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Is this plan in the same way as you have drawn it up at the time and was it circulated among the other departments, or did you draw up that chart your self?
A.- No, I didn't do it under my own initiative. I saw it as it was circulated of course. I can't tell you -- I certainly saw it I know.
Q.- You saw it? Were you in charge of a department?
A.- Yes, Department V/5/B.
Q.- In that plan you describe Eirenschmalz as the man in charge of the construction service under V-5. Was the construction department organized into various departments under "A" to "D", and then beyond that you have made statements about all the other departments in the administrative office of the SS. Do you have full insight into these things also?
A.- I did not have any official contacts with the other departments except for the personnel department and the legal department. That is to say, there were a few employees who also worked in my department.
Q.- How is it then that you know of the duties these other departments did?
A.- That was common knowledge.
Q.- What about your own department, construction service? Did you and the other departments have precise contact all the time?
A.- No, we only had a sort of general knowledge.
Q.- General Knowledge? What do you mean by general knowledge? Assumptions, you mean, or did you have any real facts and documents on which you support your theories?
A.- I did not have any evidence or documents, but I do know that Eirenschmalz dealt with the special task units, and as far as I know, with concentration camps also. Dinkel who succeeded there in the Dachau garrison, and Flier who built the Dachau settlement, I saw that myself.
Q.- Well, let's talk more about the plan. Looking at the chart Eirenschmalz should have done two things. First he should have been in charge of the V-5 main department, V-5, and you say more about that in your affidavit, and you say, in fact, that the other departments, A through D, from an organizational point of view were under Wirenschmalz but received their orders in all practical matters from Pohl. Witness, if we have a main department chief surely it would be the usual thing for him to address his orders to the other departments, that he is allowed to do so in fact, but according to your affidavit it was there handled in a different way it seems. You say yourself that Pohl would issue professional orders to all main department chiefs.
A.- As far as construction matters were concerned, yes. I don't know about the other main departments.
Q.- We only want to speak about construction matters here. Witness, you say, in other words, that all departments A to D, received their orders from Pohl alone and direct?
A.- Any professional orders, yes. Eirenschmalz, as main department chief, was called in whenever these things were circulated, and it would reach Eirenschmalz because he was in charge of the organizational side. He had no other task as a main department chief.
Q.- As one reads your affidavit the term "organizational" leads one to believe that Eirenschmalz would have something to say, out now I take it that the organization, that is to say the large directives, were issued by Pohl?
A.- Yes.
Q.- These tasks of Eirenschmalz were carried out by him in his own department and were confined only to tasks of a subordinate nature?
A.- Yes, quite.
Q.- In other words, the term "main department chief" is a mistaken one, is it not?
A.- All I can remember is that on the organizational chart he was listed as a main department chief, but the chiefs of the various subdepartments apart from his own had nothing to do with it in professional matters.
Q.- Witness, we are not so much interested in what the chart says. We want to know how things worked out in actual fact.
A. In actual fact the position was that the various department chiefs, A through D, received their orders immediately from the administrative chief.
Q. What disciplinary power did Eirenschmalz ***
A. None at all.
Q. Were Departments A through D independent ones?
A. Yes, in that sense they were.
Q. They were merely coordinated on the plan?
A. They were independent of Eirenschmalz, I mean.
Q. Completely independent of him?
A. Certainly.
Q. I now want to talk about Department V-5/A of which Eirenschmalz was in charge. I want to ask you again, how did you know what tasks Eirenschmalz really carried out from '36 to '38? Witness, don't base yourself now on the organizational chart. Tell us precisely from your knowledge and your own experience, what did Eirenschmalz do in those years?
A. At that time he was the man in charge of the barracks established and constructed by the Reich Administration for the SS Special Task Units. I know that because our offices adjoined each other and there was a connecting door. For that purpose Eirenschmalz frequently traveled.
Q. That is to say that Eirenschmalz's tasks consisted -- his main tasks were construction matters for these Special Task Units?
A. Yes, for the largest part.
Q. What else did he do?
A. I know that an official of his in those years, '36 to '38, although I don't know the exact time, was ordered to go to Dachau from the administrative office in order to erect and establish the new concentration camp Dachau.
Q. Who was that?
A. Brecht, who was a civilian employee.
Q. Where did he come from?
A. I am afraid I can't tell you.
Q. Under whom was he?
A. Under Eirenschmalz.
Q. When he actually carried out this work, he still was under Eirenschmalz?
A. I am unable to tell you.
Q. Do you know who owned the Dachau site?
A. Only from hearsay.
Q. What do you know from hearsay?
A. I know that it was owned by the state and was administered by the Munich office. There was a civilian employee in charge there, a man called Dinkel, and when in the autumn of 1934, I think, I am not quite sure, the transfer was carried out to the Party, the NSDAP, I think it must have been about October '34, Reich Treasurer Schwarz was present in Dachau also. That must have been the same period of time when the installations, the concentration camp installations, as they were called, were transferred to the Party. I don't know the actual contract.
Q. Could you say the SS installations came away from the administration in Munich and were transferred to the Party then?
A. Constructions were carried out in Dachau at the time in '34.
Q. No, no, we are now talking about '36 and '38.
A. At that time it was already in the hands of the Party. Well, in '35 I left Dachau and I re-established contact with Dachau and their garrison when I constructed the barracks and the nursing home in Dachau. I had nothing to do with the other construction tasks. I don't know what was built because I had nothing to do with the site except for those two constructions, the home for nurses, and the barracks for young cadets. I went to the area of the barracks of the Deathhead Units, but I did not come anywhere near the concentration camp. I only came in the western gate.
Q. Witness, we have now confused the years again. I want to know mainly what Eirenschmalz did, not what you did. We had reached the point in 1936 or 1938 when you told us that Eirenschmalz was in charge of V-5/A.
A. Yes.
Q. And then we want to talk about Dachau, I shall ask you now, what did Eirenschralz have to do with Dachau?
A. At what period of time do you mean?
Q. In the first years, let's say from 1935 onwards, because in your affidavit you speak of the period from '36 to '38 only.
A. At that time, 1935, when I was still in charge of the construction office in Dachau, Eirenschmalz was not in Dachau as far as I can recall.
Q. Could you say he had nothing to do with the Dachau project?
A. No.
Q. Very well. Now, let's talk about 1936. What about 1936? Who was in charge of these Dachau projects?
A. The civilian employee Dinkel.
Q. He was the construction manager?
A. Yes, he was the local construction manager at Dachau. He was first of all in Munich, and he was in charge of the construction site in Dachau. Of course he had employees working under him.
Q. That was Dinkel?
A. Yes, that was Dinkel.
Q. You said just now he was an independent manager. Did he have anything to do with Eirenschmalz?
A. No, not with Eirenschmalz. The exception there was only the concentration camp, the new construction of the concentration camp in '36 or '37.
Q. Witness, is it possible that the new construction of the concentration camp established contact with Eirenschmalz because the site belonged to the NSDAP, for which reason Eirenschmalz was concerned with this as a building police officer, to supervise these things?
A. That is quite possible. I couldn't say so myself, but the possibility exists
Q. What did he have to do with the new construction anyway? You said there was an independent building manager there.
A. Well, the position is---- Perhaps I can explain it with the the SS settlement which belonged to the garrison. Dinkel had nothing to do with that. Again there was an independent department chief appointed. The position is not that the whole of the Dachau project was under Dinkel. Various details had been cut out and given somebody else, such as in my case the home for nurses and the barracks for cadets.
Q. Well, is it possible that things were very confusing there and split up?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell us now who gave the orders in Dachau?
A. For what?
Q. For new construction.
A. Herr Pohl.
Q. Pohl? You mentioned Buchenwald in your affidavit also as a task of which Eirenschmalz was supposed to be in charge.
A. Yes, that was as early as 1938 when I heard of that for the first time. Eirenschmalz sent along a man called Riedel as my future subordinate or assistant. I can't tell you which.
Q. You just mentioned this man. I deduce from that Eirenschmalz was concerned with concentration camp tasks and TV.
A. As Reidel was in Munich at the time, he was with Eirenschmalz.
Q. What did he want to do?
A. I don't know.
Q. Did he introduce you two officially to each other, or was it a private introduction?
A. It was on the occasion when we visited an art exhibition in May 1938, in May or June '38.
Q. And under whom was Reidel working at the time?
A. I don't know. Eirenschmalz introduced him to me as my future colleague or subordinate, I don't know which, as I was in charge of TV and concentration camps.
Q. From whom were you to take this over?
A. Well, some of it I was told to take over by Pohl himself, the preliminary work for the labor camps at Flossenburg and Mauthausen.
Q. What other tasks were there, other concentration camps you were going to take over, or what?
A. Well- I knew from hearsay about Dachau. Of course Dachau I knew anyway, and then I heard of Buchenwald.
Q. You had worked on that before?
A. I am not quite sure.
Q. Did Eirenschmalz work on these things before?
A. All I know was that some heads must have been with Eirenschmalz. What he did for Buchenwald and how I can't tell you.
Q. Witness, then I must put to you that in paragraph 17 of your affidavit you gave an example for the Special Task Units, more barracks for the Deathhead Units, new constructions, and also for the Buchenwald concentration camp. How am I understand that? Is that the sort of work V-5/A was in charge of at the time?
A: I conclude that from the fact that the civilian employee Brecht, who used to be with Eirenschmaltz built the Dachau camp and came to see us in Munich sometimes, and Hauptsturmfuehrer Riedel came in from Buchenwald.
Q: But, witness, does the possibility exist that Brecht, who formerly had worked with Eirenschmaltz, was transferred somewhere else? Perhaps to the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps? And then was given these tasks after he had left Eirenschmaltz?
A: Yes, that possibility exists. I don't know too much about the internal conditions of Department V-5-A; I don't know too much about their changes. All I know is that Brecht left and went to Dachau.
Q: Do I understand you correctly if I take it that by the removal of Brencht to concentration camp tasks you deduced that Eirenschmaltz had worked on concentration camp problems because formerly Brecht had worked with him?
A: No; also because Brecht came and saw him a few times; that, in other words, he came and received orders or something else.
Q: But, witness, I want to know clearly and precisely from you; Was Eirenschmaltz the superior of Brecht or not?
A: In the old days -- yes, but I don't know what period of time.
Q: But this is the important period of time, when Brecht was in charge of concentration camp problems.
A: Well, I didn't work on concentration camp problems myself and, therefore, I do not know the details of another department.
Q: Is it correct for me to conclude that you are not absolutely certain and cannot state that Eirenschmaltz, in 1936 to 1938, worked on TV and concentration camp tasks.
A: All I know is that I deduced from the fact that Brecht and Riedel came to see Eirenschmaltz, that he worked on these problems, Dachau and Buchenwald.
Q: This is an assumption, a deduction?
A: Yes, it is a deduction. I cannot give you a document to prove it, or any official combination. I can't give you these.
Q: Oh, you can't? Then you have also deduced from the fact that Eirenschmaltz is supposed to have introduced you to a construction manager, you said construction manager -you mentioned Riedel. Did you meet any other construction manager through Eirenschmaltz?
A: Riedel is the only one I know about.
Q: Oh, is he the only one? Can you remember how you were introduced? What did Eirenschmaltz say?
A: No, I don't think I can. Well, we met because the whole department, all departments on that afternoon, had a day off in order to go and see this art exhibition, and, on the stairs outside the building, we met, and Eirenschmaltz introduced Riedel to me. It was always planned that I should take over that sphere of tasks.
Q: Witness, I must repeat: Whom were you to take it over from? From whom? Who was your predecessor?
A: Well, some from Eirenschmaltz, and anything new I was to take over I would get my orders from Pohl.
Q: What part did you take over from Eirenschmaltz? You said just now that you are not quite sure that Eirenschmaltz worked on such tasks at all. What were you to take over?
A: The field of tasks TV and Concentration Camps. Who worked on it I don't know, and where the files piled up, or what they worked on, what was doen in Munich or Buchenwald, let us say, I can't tell you because I had not taken it over -or never took it over. 6328
Q: Then you made a trip afterwards with Pohl, Eicke, and technical assistants? Was Eirenschmaltz among those present?
A: No.
Q: Why wasn't he, if he had to work on these tasks -concentration camp tasks and TV tasks? Who were the technical assistants?
A: On one trip there was a man called Bestel, and then there were some people from the economic enterprises, geologists, who looked at the stones, and I think also a few representatives of the legal department.
Q: Who was Eicke?
A: Eicke was the Inspector of the Death Head units, and concentration camps.
Q: What did he want on this trip?
A: On this trip?
Q: What did he have to do with it?
A: I don't know.
Q: What was laid down?
A: His site was looked for, where a labor camp could be established, a labor camp of the Dachau concentration camp.
Q: Did Eicke express his opinions on that trip?
A: Well, I myself was not present when Eicke and Pohl had the conferences. I was purely a spectator; I was not present at the conferences direct -- only if and when I was asked whether it was possible to establish a few barracks.
Q: Eicke was Inspector of Concentration Camps, was he?
A: Yes.
Q: Does the possibility exist that the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps at that time concerned itself with these construction matters, especially as Eicke went along again in 1938 in order to find land for new concentration camps?
A: All I know is the construction enterprises from point of view of the administrative offices; whether Eicke had a building department of his own, I don't know.
Q: Witness, please understand my question correctly. Surely it is a striking fact that the Inspector of Concentration Camps should be present on trips which are concerned with the construction aspect. Then surely the same assumptions you had for Eirenschmaltz applies also; namely, that the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps continued to concern itself with construction problems; or do you think that is entirely impossible.
As I know that the construction service was concentrated in the administrative offices, and I cannot imagine that other departments had construction offices which concerned themselves with construction matters at all.
Q: Well, then, please explain to me why Eicke went along on this trip which was devoted to construction matters?
A: Well, it was not devoted only to construction matters, At least, I couldn't say so.
Q: But, witness, surely it was devoted only to construction matters.
A: Well, I was present there as a building construction expert, but there were other experts there too, geologists, and people like that.
Q: Witness, the whole point of that trip was to find sites for concentration camps. You said so just now. Surely it was a construction trip in that sense, wasn't it?
A: Well, yes, in that sense, yes.
Q: Who took over the TV and concentration camps tasks?
A: My department, which was in charge of construction matters, I passed on to civilian employee Eckstein, who was also one of Eirenschmaltz's colleagues.
Q: In what department was he working?
A: Eckstein, you mean?
Q: Yes.
A: In Eirenschmaltz's office, V-5-".
Q: Did he remain there in V-5-A?
A: I can't tell you; I don't think so because Department B was an independent department, and I handed Eckstein over, and within ten minutes I had to leave the office and go into another one. I never had any more contact with the construction departments during the balance of my time with the administrative office.
Q: Eckstein left Eirenschmaltz's department, in other words, when he took over the TV and Concentration Camps?
A: I cannot tell you; I am unable to tell you that. I had nothing to do with it.
Q: How long did Eckstein work on these things?
A: I couldn't tell you, I am afraid, because by the beginning of August I left on a few weeks' leave, and finally I left on 31 August, 1938.
Q: Who was his successor?
A: I can't tell you. I don't know the period, of time until 1940.
Q: You left in 1938. Do you know that Eirenschmaltz wanted to leave at that time too? He had put in for his resignation.
A: I know there was a difference of opinion, and I believe for so e days or weeks, a few weeks before I had my differences with Pohl, he had a very grave conflict of opinion with Pohl. He told me personally, not officially, purely personally. I believe he put in for his resignation.
Q: Did you see the actual request?
A: He didn't actually let me read the document. He was quite frank to me and told me he had put in for his resignation. He wanted to leave.
Q: Do you know what happened to the request?
A: I don't know much about that. I know that I put in for my own resignation at the same time, and I believe later, when things were being reorganizaed, Eirenschmaltz was with Frank -- that was the Troop Administrative Office of the Waffen SS. It was a purely military department of the Special Tasks unit.
Q: When did he get there?
A: I am afraid I can't tell you. All I know is when I was called up he was there.
Q: That did he do there?
A: I couldn't tell you. At that time I did not see Eirenschmaltz again; only when the WVHA was founded did Eirenschmaltz again come under Pohl's authority.
Q: When you returned to the office Budget & Building, Eirenschmaltz was no longer there, and you were working in the WVHA, were you? From when onwards?
A: In Construction & Budget, in Office II, Construction, from the time when the WVHA was founded, in the spring of 1942.
Q: Until the end?
A: Yes.
Q: Then in your affidavit you say and make statements about the maintenance. You know that Eirenschmaltz was in charge of Department C-6?
A: Yes.
Q: You said in your affidavit that once a year permission was granted, it was stated before, what type of repair work would crop up during the year, and then a lump sum was granted for these projects.
That is how you expressed yourself in your affidavit.
A: Yes, that is how I remember it.
Q: The way things are formulated in your affidavit might lead to misunderstandings because one might come to the conclusion that apart from that another permission was necessary in all cases when repair work became necessary, I would like to ask you how is one to understand that phrase. Was the position that Office C-6 participated only once before when an estimation of the probable repair work was done, and that was all C-6 did, is it?
A: Yes.
Q: -- or over and beyond that, did C-6 have other tasks, particularly in all cases had to give a new permission?
A: No, C-6 for all garrison administrations, released a certain sum of money; the accounts were then drawn up by the office itself which needed the repair work, and handed in to C-6, the lists which did not have to give too many details were checked up by C-6 and they would then put the money required at the disposal of the offices. The man in charge of the agency would then have the necessary repair work and maintenance carried out, carried out by himself.
Q: Without any further permissions?
A: Yes, of course. Then you always had to have permission under the War Economy Regulations, under special construction measures by the total organization; for instance, the Organization Todt in the war was cut down time and again. I can remember that in 1943 the construction sum of 5,000 was the one for which you did not have to have permission -- whereas in 1944 it was only 500 marks, which you could use as a free sum, so to speak, and it need not have permission under the war economy.
It had nothing to do with the SS.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Von Stein, we will recess for fifteen minutes.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. VON STEIN (Attorney for Defendant Eirenschmalz): May I continue, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Please do.
BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. Witness, before the recess we stopped with the question of the construction expenses. You answered my question whether Office C-VI also was occupied with construction maintenance, insofar as to whether when repair work was carried out in each case, an inquiry had to be made to the Office once more, and you answered that question in the negative.
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. I now want to ask you whether you know just how the sum was reported to Office C-VI. What I want to know is whether Office C-VI in each case received a detailed list about the repair work which was to be carried out or whether only a total sum about the intended repairs would be submitted to Office C-VI.
A. The list of construction maintenance was generally a list which did not contain any individual figures. It was made for roof repairs or for the painting of rooms or for the irrigation, and for repair work, but it did not list any individual details with the planned expenses. It was just a general list and it was then compiled according to the buildings or according to the construction sites and then it was passed on to Office C-VI. It was not a detailed list.
Q. Witness, do you know that in times of war an unlimited budget was in existence and that, consequently, the individual construction manager did not have the duty of announcing the repair work in advance?
A. The construction manager had nothing to do with it, but only the administrators.
Q. Very well. Was it correct that the local administration continued to pass on the reports?
A. Yes, they reported it to Office C-VI.
Q. What I want to know now is whether in war time was it also their duty to pass on these reports or, whether as a result of the open budget, it was not necessary for them any more to announce the construction in advance?
A. From the directive which was issued in 1944, I am able to say that the funds were not be furnished anymore, by C-VI, and up to a certain number that was to be carried out by the Inspectorate. We still had an approximate announcement of the construction work to be carried out and it had to be approved by the Budgetary Agencies and the local administration would then dispose of these requests.
Q. Witness, in all case you gave limitation up to 1943?
A. To 1944, because the budget in 1944 and 1945 -
Q. Witness, what I mean is this: You want to tell us that up to the Year 1943, the Office C-VI dealt with this task and from the Year 1944, on, it was not the Office C-VI anymore, but it was the Office C-V.
A. Yes, they had to furnish the funds. The date is not correct. The date should be 1944. Just what funds were furnished for the fiscal year from 1 April 1944 to 31 March 1945 and were furnished by Office C-VI, I don't know, the Inspectorate or C-V, if the amount had been more than 100,000 marks then the Office C-V would have had to furnish it. However, this could not be carried out anymore, because in the meantime the War Economy Regulations had come out and no new repairs could be carried out, if they exceeded 500 Marks.