Q. Why do you support the opinion which you express in the affidavit, namely, that from these enterprises at Dachau -- these enterprises developed into the big SS concerns?
A. I know that for a short time - my construction inspector was at Dachau for a short time - and these work enterprises at the time were now changed into the title DAW.
Q. That was in 1943?
A. Yes, in 1943.
Q. The workshops which we have discussed were started in what year?
A. That was 1933, 1934, and 1935. These were the same workshops. Nothing changed there.
Q. Did you observe the development in the next ten years?
A. No, I did not.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: I have no further questions.
DR. HOFFMANN (for defendant Scheide): Your Honor, I have talked to the witness Morgen and as I have said once before this morning it will take me at least one day to bring him here. Now, tomorrow the verdict will be announced in the medical case, and this will also go on through Wednesday. Since I am a defense counsel in the medical case, and since my colleague Dr. Seidl also has to defend a client there, but is interested also in the witness Morgen, it would be possible for me to bring the witness Morgen here on Thursday. However, in order to keep the trial going under the circumstances, without endangering the defense of my client, I would be willing to ask the witness for an affidavit and submit the affidavit instead of calling him here.
THE PRESIDENT: We have had too many affidavits. We've got the witness here. Let's have his testimony from the witness stand.
DR. SEIDL (for defendant Pohl): Your Honor, personally I am interested in the witness Morgen only insofar as my taking him under cross examination, if any other defense counsel or the prosecution want to interrogate this witness. I support the request of my colleague Hoffmann; I join in his request that the examination of this witness should be post poned, if it should not be possible that he bring an affidavit.
I myself am not directly interested in the witness because I already have a whole series of affidavits which are sufficient to prove what I want to prove. However, I would like to take the witness under cross examination if he appears before this Tribunal as a witness.
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, may I request that the examination of the witness be postponed until Thursday because I have to be present when the verdict is announced in the medical case.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, what are you going to do this afternoon?
DR. HOFFMANN: In no case will the afternoon be sufficient in order to examine the witness and to handle the cross examination. Several colleagues of mine want to examine him, and also the prosecution. I will need an entire day for the witness. And since tomorrow morning at nine-thirty the verdict will be announced in the medical case I must request that I be permitted to call this witness on Thursday.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, we don't expect you to be in here tomorrow morning. You should be in Tribunal I. That is proper. And don't bring in affidavits. Let us get at this witness. Why can you not take him right now and ask him what you want to know? In five minutes? Could you not start in five minutes?
DR. HOFFMANN: I am prepared to start in five minutes, but then his examination will be interrupted on Tuesday and Wednesday because then I have to be present in Court I.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that won't bother us. We can pick it up again when you get back from the medical case. We are trying to finish the testimony in this case this week. There are certain urgent reasons why we have got to hurry and finish this case, and we don't want to throw away this afternoon, so we may call on you to start on Dr. Morgen this afternoon. You better be ready.
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, I really don't like to do that. Then I would rather not call the witness at all.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all right with us.
DR. HOFFMANN: Very well, then I shall refrain from calling this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: No, I don't want to cheat you out of your witness that way. If you really need him, then you will have a chance to examine him. Do you really need him?
DR. HOFFMANN: I really do need him.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, all right.
DR. HOFFMANN: However, I don't like this interruption, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean you don't like to do it in two pieces?
DR. HOFFMANN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait, just a minute. Any news about Schwarz; just passed Ingolstadt?
MR. ROBBINS: I have nothing new, Your Honor. I was about to say that we might put on one of our rebuttal witnesses, the witness who was going to testify about Fanslau and Tschentscher.
THE PRESIDENT: That's all right. We don't want to lose this afternoon - or lose the time.
MR. ROBBINS: I believe we can get him here. He is not in jail but I am pretty sure we can get him here. He is in Nuernberg.
DR. SEIDL: Your Honor, if we are dealing with the question of utilizing the time reasonably this afternoon, then we could begin with submitting the documents of the defense. I have two document books and I know that they have already been translated, and perhaps in this manner we could utilize this afternoon's session - if the Secretary General is able to procure the translations of these document books for us.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is apparent, it is clear, that between the prosecution's rebuttal witness, and possibly Schwarz, if we can find him, and the defense document books, we can use this afternoon.
Dr. Hoffmann, Judge Musmanno just asked this very significant question. If you could put Dr. Morgen's testimony into an affidavit, why will it take you a full day to cross examine him on the same subject?
DR. HOFFMANN: If I submit an affidavit, then I would limit this affidavit to several points.
THE PRESIDENT: Why don't you limit the cross examination to the same points?
DR. HOFFMANN: Because I am convinced that once the cross examination begins the matter will last for quite a long period of time.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean you won't be able to let go of the witness?
DR. HOFFMANN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: In English we call that getting a bear by the tail. You don't dare let go.
DR. HOFFMANN: No.
MR. ROBBINS: May I announce what the prosecution proposes to do in the way of rebuttal. We have only four witnesses that I know of now. Two of them are on the Fanslau-Tschentscher episode. Their names are Otto and Sauer. A third witness whom I think will take maybe an hour, named Ebbers, and he will testify about the deaths at Wewelsburg. He was the man who kept the death books at Wewelsburg. And possibly a fourth witness, Camille Sachs, denazification minister from Nuernberg, who will testify about general knowledge in Germany of the criminal activities of the SS. Then we have two or three document books which will not take very long to put into evidence. I suppose about fifty documents.
THE PRESIDENT: How much of this proof is available -- I mean, that you can put your hands on it?
MR. ROBBINS: Otto and Ebbers are both available. Those are two of the witnesses I just mentioned. Sauer, a third witness, will be here tomorrow, I believe. And the fourth witness should also be here. Sachs is in Munich. He can be here tomorrow or Wednesday morning by the latest.
THE PRESIDENT: And then with Schwarz. That will fill today and tomorrow, won't it -- with some padding with documents, if necessary?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, Dr. Hoffmann, you win. Thursday. You will be ready Thursday morning.
DR. HOFFMANN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: We will hear from you as soon as we can on Thursday, then.
DR. HOFFMANN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Are you going to cross-examine? (To Dr. von Stakelberg, counsel for defendant Fanslau)
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have only a minute. Would you start at the afternoon session, please?
Recess until one forty-five. Quarter of two. Not two o'clock. One forty-five.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until 1345.
(The Tribunal recessed until 1345 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 18 August 1947) HUBERT KARL - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. VON STAKELBERG for the defendant Fanslau:
Q Witness, I have a few questions about your chart, the organizational chart, with reference to Main Department V/I. You told us this morning that you had drawn that chart for the year 1936. Is that right?
A Yes, for roughly 1936 to 1938. Small details, of course, changed.
Q What do you call small details?
A For instance, personnel, the personnel of the Main Department.
Q Do you mean personnel?
A Yes, indeed, I do.
Q Can you from your own knowledge tell us that there were no factual changes?
A In the organizational chart? Well, as far as the construction services were concerned I am quite sure there weren't. As to the other departments I don't know.
Q I mean in Main Department V/I.
A I can't tell you anything about that.
Q You can't. This morning you told us that the chart was drawn basically on hearsay.
A Yes, hearsay and memory and my recollection because I had no relations with the other Main Departments with the exception of legal and personnel departments.
Q Therefore, you cannot tell us anything about the factual changes since 1936 nor the changes in personnel?
A I can't add anything to what I have said before.
Q What you told us as the only change in personnel was that the chief of Main Department after the defendant Frank became the defendant Fanslau but can you give us that date?
A No.
Q I see. I believe that it is probably correct if I say that you drew that chart not from your own knowledge?
A No from my recollection as far as I recall the things. It was done according to the best of my knowledge and belief and recollection.
Q I am quite prepared to believe you that but what I want to know is whether the facts were known to you from your own knowledge or whether they reached you through third parties?
A The experiences I met while present in the Administrative Staff and of which I had some recollection but not in official respect as far as the connection with V/I went. Orders reached our department always from the Administrative Chief.
Q Then it is important to me that you said what factual changes occurred since 1936?
A I must say the factual changes are unknown to me.
Q One more question. Regarding Paragraph 17 of your affidavit you say there that "as manager of the construction inspection of the Waffen-SS and the Police 'Reich South' I had occasional dealings with Amt A III of the W.V.H.A." When did you have these relations with A/III?
A In 1943 on the occasion when a closing depot was established in Grafenreuth negotiations about the purchase of land became necessary and thereupon A/III was charged with confiscating, purchasing, or buying this real estate. It was entirely up to A/III. What the details were I don't know.
Q From your own knowledge you only know one case from 1943?
A Yes.
Q When real estate was purchased for a closing depot?
A Yes, for the Closing depot in the second case was not necessary for this in Mauthausen for that site had been leased or purchased and, therefore, not necessary prior to 1938.
I know something about LinzKatsbach.
Q The WVHA did not exist at that time?
A No, it didn't but the legal department did.
Q Is it correct that the lease and purchase contract were transferred to you after a certain period of time?
A No.
Q Do you know that the purchase of site for the Reich after 1943 was discontinued altogether?
A No, I didn't know that. All I know is the business of Grafenreuth which fell under the Reich laws and it was leased for the duration of the War.
Q Anyway, from your own knowledge you cannot give us more details about the activities of A III in 1943 than you have already?
A What I know is that office looked after the legal aspect of the purchase of land, particularly prior to the establishment of a construction site.
DR. SCHMIDT(for Josef Vogt):
Q. Witness, in the organizational chart for the administrative Office of the SS which you drew up you said under V/II -Auditing that there were apart from Moeckl Vogt. You put those two names down on your chart. What significance is connected with that entry of yours?
A. All I can remember is that the Main Department Chief Moeckl for some reason was terminated from the Main Department and Vogt who had been there as an auditor for some time, as I remember it, was charged to take over the task which this terminated departmental chief had been in charge of.
Q. Witness, do you know when Vogt joined the Administrative Office of the SS?
A. Can't give you the precise date but I know 1936 we moved from Karl Strasse 8 to Karl Strasse 10. And, I believe, that it was around that time that Vogt joined us, that is to say the summer of 1936, perhaps.
Q. What were the relations between Vogt, I mean had he already been received in to the Administrative Service or was he still an employee?
A. I don't know the details of his position. I know he had been in civilian clothes for a long time.
Q. That means that at that time he was still an employee?
A. Yes, I don't think an SS member would not wear the uniform if the Main Office Chief as in the Main Office we had a number of civilians also.
Q. Do you believe, witness, that a civilian employee could be charged with taking over the task of the Main Department Chief of the Administrative Office of the SS? Was that possible even?
A. Well, I am afraid I can't say. All I know is that Herr Dinkel who was a civilian was in charge of a department. It wasn't entirely impossible in my opinion, as long as he has the qualifications.
Q. Do you know how many special experts were in the Main Department Auditing?
A. No, I don't know --- very many anyway. It was always well staffed, that department.
Q. Could it be true that if I put to you that, according to information supplied to me by the defendant Vogt, there were about 20 to 21 special experts at that time in the Main Department Auditing?
A. That can be well true. I think even it was perhaps the best staffed department in the whole office.
Q. Do you know whether among those experts there were some who were higher in rank than Vogt?
A. No, I don't know.
Q. Do you know any names among those experts?
A. From a later period of time I recall a few names but as far as that period of time is concerned, I don't remember anyone.
Q. Witness, you mentioned before that this organizational chart was drawn up by you and a man called Friedrich Koeberlein and another man called Weiss, I believe. I have interviewed Koeberlein about this and Koeberlein told me under oath that the entry under V/II-Auditing was incorrect in his opinion. Can you give us your comment on this?
A. Yes, the relationship between Vogt and the Main Department well, anyway, all I know is that Vogt deputized in that Main Department when Moeckl was no longer in service.
Q. When did Moeckl leave?
A. In the spring of 1938.
Q. How long and why?
A. I heard because of a personal difference of opinion -- misconduct. He drank too much.
Q. What happened at that time. Moeckl had left the office?
A. Yes, he had been terminated.
Q. How long had he been gone?
A. I never saw him again until the day I left myself. Whether discontinued temporarily or terminated altogether I can't tell you.
Q. On what do you base your opinion when you say that during this period of time Vogt deputized for him?
A. Well, I kept meeting Vogt in Pohl's ante room.
Q. This morning you mentioned who was sitting in Pohl's ante room.
A. At that time Frank, Frank as the staff leader. I still can't remember the name of his predecessor. Obersturmbannfuehrerthe name I have forgotten. He was Frank's predecessor.
Q. Do you mean to say that you saw Vogt in the ante room with Frank, sitting there, and you deduced from that Vogt represented the absent Moeckl as deputy?
A. Yes, that is a reasonable conclusion because a normal simple man would not reach Pohl's ante room. The mail was collected in the ante room of the staff leader.
Q. Witness, I have already put to you that Koeberlein regarded this entry as wrong because he says that Vogt to his knowledge was neither Main Department Chief nor a deputy for the Main Department Chief. That is contradictory to your assumption of today. I have also interviewed other witnesses on this point from among the witnesses who have checked this organizational chart and have signed it as correct. This includes Burger, the witness Weggel, the witness Kiener and the witness Willi Burger says that Vogt between 1936 and 1938 was not in charge of the Department nor was he the official deputy.
Q. Well, as far as I am concerned I cannot speak with absolute certainty that Vogt had been appointed Main Department Chief or charged with the whole office. All I know was that Vogt as an expert showed up quite often in the room of the Staff leader.
Q. Do you know the name of Hauptstrumfuehrer Klein of the auditing department?
A. No.
Q. He is described by the witness Burger as the deputy of Moeckel. Do you know anything about that?
A. I do not know all types of personnel in that department. All I know is that Moeckel was Main Department Chief and Vogt for that period of time could not regard himself as Main Department Chief you see but perhaps he thought he would be one in the future.
Q. You say he might be one in the future. Do you know whether later on Vogt became the man in charge of the auditing department?
A. Yes. I did not say Vogt personally but I knew that he was in the WVHA.
Q. Did you know that before the foundation of the WVHA Vogt was in charge of the auditing department with the Army Administrative office or Labor Administrative Office of the Waffen SS?
A. No, I didn't know that. I didn't know the development of the auditing department in detail. All I remember is that Moeckel was there, Vogt was there but the history of the auditing department is beyond me. I know they had a large number of employees and experts.
Q. Witness, you were kind enough some weeks ago to give me a written affidavit. I shall read to you the contents of this affidavit. It is not very long. I have this affidavit here and it is part of my Supplement Document Book II and after it has been translated I shall submit it as an exhibit to the Tribunal.
This is what the witness told me on 25 July 1947.
After the usual introduction "As far as the photostatic copy of the organizational chart submitted to me is concerned, namely, of the administrative office of the SS for the years 1936 to 1938, Document NO-4123, I wish to say this. It is true that I and Friedrich Koeberlein and Paul Reis drew up, asked by the interrogator Pongert, this chart of the administrative office in Munich for the years 1936 to 1938 from my memory. I myself was in charge of Department V/V/B at that time, which dealt with specialized construction matters. I had no contact with the other main departments except for the main treasury in an official manner, that is.
"Therefore, I am not well informed about the other main departments and their organization. Particularly the main department V/II, Auditing, is not too well known to me in its personnel policy. As far as the members of Main Department Auditing are concerned, I remember only two names, Moeckl and Vogt. The names of the other members I no longer recall, nor did I have any contacts with them at the time. I know that Moeckl was the chief of that main department. I believe I still remember that Moeckl in 1938 was absent for some time and that during that period of time I frequently saw Vogt in the anteroom of Pohl. I myself did not know Vogt personally. Of course, whether during that period of time he was in charge of the Main De-partment or deputized for the absent worker I do not know.
"When I drew up the chart, the main emphasis was not on the personnel side of things but on the organization of the administrative office as it really was. I could, therefore, not take it upon myself to say under oath that Vogt was in charge of V/II Auditing. I myself left the administrative office of the SS in August 1938. Of its later development and that of the Main Department V/II I am unable to give any more details."
Q Witness, I have now read to you what you told me at the time, and I should like to ask you whether this is correct, what you told me in writing under oath at the time.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A Yes.
Q You do not wish to say that Vogt at that time, 1936 to 1938, was in charge of the Main Department?
A No.
Q Nor can you say that he was the Deputy Main Department Chief?
A No, I couldn't say that.
Q You couldn't say that. I see.
A The personnel changes occurred in the spring of 1938 at a period of time, that is, when I was soon to leave the office.
DR. SCHMIDT: I have no further questions.
DR. MUELLER-THORGOW (for the defendant Georg Loerner): May it please the Court, I have only one brief question.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. MUELLER-THORGOW:
Q Witness, in your second affidavit of 3rd July 1947 it says under Paragraph 12: "V III, Clothing and Equipment. Main Section Chief Georg Loerner. The Main Section was primarily divided according to technical lines, namely, textiles, leather, material. The further subdivision was as follows: "V III a and b." All that is without interest. "V III c, under Bernlochner. Production of the uniforms for the Allgemeine SS."
Witness, you made a mistake there at this point?
A Production is wrong; production is the wrong term.
Q Was it not rather the case that clothing for the Allgemeine SS was handled as a formation of the NSDAP exclusively by the Reich agency?
A Yes, production and supplies for the Allgemeine SS was done by the Reich Quartermaster General, so to speak.
Q Including production?
A Yes; but I don't know where production was made, but it was made through the Reich Quartermaster General. I know that the regulations Court No. II, Case No. 4.on how to make these uniforms came from the SS administration, including the Allgemeine SS.
THE PRESIDENT: What should the word be? If production is the wrong word, what is the right word?
DR. MUELLER-THORGOW: Manufacture of uniforms for the Allgemeine SS.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh. The witness says that there was no manufacture of uniforms through the Allgemeine SS in V/VIII/c; they didn't make uniforms.
DR. MUELLER-THORGOW: Yes, but he said so in his affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if they didn't make uniforms, what did they do?
DR. MUELLER-THORGOW: They issued the regulations for the Department V/III/c as the witness said; merely issued the regulations guiding the production of the uniforms for the Allgemeine SS.
THE PRESIDENT: Specifications? Is that right?
DR. MUELLER-THORGOW: Yes, quite.
BY DR. MUELLER-THORGOW:
Q Witness, you admit, therefore, that in this point of your affidavit, you made a mistake?
A Yes.
DR. MUELLER-THORGOW: I have no further questions.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. FROESCHMANN (For the defendant MUMMENTHEY):
Q Witness, can you remember whether in the inspection tour you mentioned this morning which you made in 1938 there were, apart from Eicke and Pohl, also representatives of the DEST?
A One representative was sure to have been present because I know that from among the inspected quarries a sample of the stones was taken along.
Q Can you remember any names, such as Salpeter or Ahrens?
A Yes, Salpeter, Ahrens--I recall those names, but not so Court No. II, Case No. 4.clearly.
Q Were those two gentlemen or one of them present on the inspection trip?
A I'm afraid I can't tell you. Somebody was there representing DEST.
Q Was the point of the trip to have the quarries of Flossenburg and Mauthausen opened up, or were they to be exploited still further?
AAll I know is that a labor camp was to be established.
Q Just a moment. All I want to know is whether the quarries were being operated then and were to be exploited further, or whether they were to be opened up.
A They were quarries which were not operated at the time.
Q I see. Was it mentioned at the time how many workers were needed for the quarries in Flossenburg and Mauthausen?
AA camp was to be established.
Q Witness, please answer my question as I put it. What I asked you was how many workers was it intended to use for those two quarries.
A I can't tell you.
Q Was it a thousand; two thousand; or a few hundred?
AA few hundred, I should say, some hundred.
Q What sort of accommodation and camps were to be established for these few hundreds of workers?
AA camp consisting of barracks for about four hundred and six hundred--six hundred for Mauthausen, I believe, and four hundred for Flossenburg.
Q A labor camp was envisaged, was it?
A Yes.
Q My last question. At that time when you went on the trip, was any reference made to the establishment of a concentration camp?
A No.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Thank you very much. No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions by the defense counsel? The Prosecution may cross examine.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, you were in the Verwaltungsamt SS from 1933 to 1938? Is that right?
A I didn't hear.
Q Herr Karl, you were in the Verwaltungsamt SS from 1933 to 1938?
A Yes.
Q During what period of time were you in the Main Office Budget and Building.
A I was called back there in 1940, on 15 May 1940. I was transferred to an outside agency, Maehrish Ostrau, and then I was transferred to Norway. From Norway I went to Cracow. During that period of time in Cracow, the Main Office Budget and Building, the WVHA, arose.
Q Excuse me, just briefly, what period of time were you in Haushalt und Bauten?
A From 1940 until the WVHA was established, in February, 1942.
Q Then during what period of time did you work in the WVHA?
A From 1942 until the end--not in the Main Office, but I was in an outside agency under the Main Office.
Q. Now, you worked in the Administrative Office of the SS from 1933 up until the end of the war, with the exception of two years from 1938 to 1940?
A. Yes.
Q. During that time I take it you must have seen a good many organizational charts and tables of organizations of the administrative agencies of the SS? Is that correct?
A. No, I didn't see too many organizational charts except those of the administrative office.
Q. That's what I'm talking about, the administrative office.
A. Yes, of the administrative office.
Q. That is, you saw tables of organizations of the Verwaltungsamt?
A. Oh, yes, I saw those from 1933 until 1938.
Q. Did you tell what agency of the SS was in charge of construction for the SS?
A. For the SS? The administrative office.
Q. Was any other office in charge of any construction for the SS?
A. Yes.
Q. What other offices?
A. I know the Reich Construction Office, the Reich Construction Administration, and also the Settlement Companies.
Q. While you worked in the Office V/V, did you become familiar with the tasks which were performed by the various offices in V/V?
A. No, I didn't know anything about that, not really. All I know is that Eirenschmalz had connections with the Reich Construction Administration, that is, the agency which built the barracks for the special task units, the Verfuegungstruppe.
Q. Did you know that it was the task of V/V/a to be in charge of construction for the Death Head Units?
A. I heard that only through the two colleagues Brecht and Riedl.
Q. They told you that? Did they tell you that?
A. I knew Brecht personally and Riedl was introduced to me; and from that I gathered that Brecht and Riedl had been charged with building concentration camps.
Q. Who told you that you were to take over the task of Eirenschmalz in V/V/a?
A. Pohl.
Q. Did he tell you what your tasks would be?
A. I was to take over the sphere of tasks from T.V. and the concentration camps, and for that purpose I was to play a part in the new labor camps after 1938.
Q. You told us you were sitting next door to Eirenschmalz?
A. Yes.
Q. He was in charge of your office, organizationally? You said that, is that correct?
A. Yes. He was a Main Department chief in that sense, but he was not my superior in factual matters.
Q. Each of the agencies V/V/a, b, c, and d, you say in your affidavit, reported directly to Pohl?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know that V/V/a was in charge of Eirenschmalz directly?
A. In that sense Eirenschmalz again was a department chief and directly under Pohl.
Q. He himself was in charge of V/V/a?
A. Yes. He was the department chief in his department.
Q. To the best of your knowledge was Riedl a subordinate of Eirenschmalz?
A. Yes. We were not under him in the professional or factual sense, b, c, and d, in factual and professional matters, only if a circular reached us or something like that, it would go to Eirenschmalz and he would circulate it within the department to a, b, c, and d, and the main Department.
Q. What position did Riedl hold?
A. Riedl? Riedl told me one day that he was in charge of the construction matters in Buchenwald.
Q. Is it your understanding that Riedl was under Eirenschmalz organizationally?
A. The relations between Riedl and Eirenschmalz are not too well known to me. I know that Riedl twice, three times, or perhaps four times called on Eirenschmalz. Whether Eirenschmalz ever went to Buchenwald I don't know. He traveled a lot but whether he went to Buchenwald I don't know.
Q. Will you tell us who Helmuth Kiener is, Witness, and what position he held?
A. I don't know Kiener.
Q. Do you know what position Deis held?
A. Keis? I don't know.
Q. Paul Keis.
A. Paul Keis? No. I don't know. He was in Main Department V/IV, Accommodations. He had a depot for equipment for billets, a depot for such equipment as chairs, tables, and so forth.
Q. I believe you said that you wished to make a correction in your affidavit with regard to the production of uniforms.
A. Yes, for the Allgemeine SS.
Q. This was under V/III/c. You also wish to make a correction, I take it from your testimony, about the position that Vogt held. You do not know that Vogt was chief of V/II?
A. No, not in that sense. All I know is that Moeckl in the spring of 1938 was terminated; and as far as I can recall, Vogt in some form or other was used in that office.