Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Just answer my questions, please. Don't you think that a member of the Army or the Air Force or the Navy can be sentenced to death for self-mutilation, for desertion, just like any member of the SS, and that, therefore, in this decision, your membership in the SS or any other branch of the Service was of no importance whatsoever?
A I did not belong to any branch of military service any more. This was because I didn't swear an oath to the SS, because the oath to the SS maintains the point of view that the SS does not consider God its only lord but the Fuehrer instead. The oath of the SS is, "My honor is loyalty to my Fuehrer" and not for God. However, in the Wehrmacht I gave the oath, and I swore, "I swear by God the Almighty," and I never gave any oath for the Fuehrer alone.
Q Witness, just answer those questions which I am putting to you. In this last session were you acquitted of the self-mutilation and of the crime of going absent without leave?
A Yes.
Q Weren't you acquitted?
A Yes.
Q And in spite of this you were put into protective custody for life?
A That was done because I tried to dodge the draft in 1939.
Q Because you tried to dodge the military service in 1939?
A Yes.
Q Witness, do you know the existence of Paragraph 51 of the German Reich Penal Code?
A No. I would like to know it.
Q Paragraph 51 of the German Penal Code provides for the acquiting of offenses when the person concerned, according to his mental ability, is not responsible for the acts which he has committed. However, in order to protect the public the person concerned, if he has committed severe crimes, he is put into protective custody, and is kept there. This is not meant as a punishment, but this is a protective Court No. II, Case No. 4.Was this paragraph 51 applied in your trial?
A No, they only talked about Paragraph 5-A.
Q Paragraph 5-A is the regular provision in the framework for the punishment itself. Wasn't it explained to you that since you were lacking in mental stability you could not be held responsible for your acts?
A No.
Q And consequently you could not be punished?
A I was punished. I was punished in the camp at Danzig Matzgau.
Q And therefore you were only to be kept in protective custody?
A Yes.
Q Wasn't that explained to you?
A No. I was just to be punished as an education measure because the camp at Danzig Matzgau was not a punitive camp but it was an education camp.
Q At the various sessions at the time when the Court Martial proceedings were under way, were you given a medical examination?
A No.
Q Weren't you examined by the troop physician or so?
A No.
Q I am going to touch briefly the incident at Zelozow which you have mentioned. Do you know the master butcher Jackl of the Butchers' Company?
A Yes.
Q Was this man Jackl also in the Village of Zelozow?
A Whether he was there I don't know.
Q However, you consider that possible?
A Yes, naturally.
Q Do you know the first sergeant in the Butchers' Company, Mueller?
A. His name was Erich Mueller.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Was this first sergeant present at the incidents which you have described?
A No.
Q How do you know that?
A When we looked on across the bridge our first sergeant, our top kick, was standing there with Unterscharfuehrer Buettner and other company members. They were standing near a vehicle, and they were shaving themselves. He didn't even have the time of handling all the orderly room matters which had accumulated.
Q In any case you know Mueller?
A Yes.
Q And he marched along together with the units?
A Yes.
Q Do you know Hauptsturmfuehrer Schaefer?
A Yes.
Q What functions did he have to carry out?
A I don't know what his exact status was, what his work was. I only saw him very briefly, and I saw him really for the first time at Bogdanovka when we moved at night, and then I also saw him once more at Tarnopol. I cannot recall having seen Schaefer any more in the administrative unit.
Q Do you know whether Schaefer was present at the incidents of Zelozow?
A I didn't see him there. I have already stated that I saw Schaefer for the first time at Bogdanovka.
Q What would you say, Witness, if these three men would appear here, and if they would testify that they together with Tschentscher and together with Fanslau had been there when the unit moved on, and that they were always in the vicinity of Tschentscher, and if they would describe this testimony here to be untrue?
A Then I would say that when I was present in the examination, neither Jackl nor Mueller were able to remember, and they said Court No. II, Case No. 4.they had too much work in order to care about this.
That was when I was examined.
Q Witness, were you examined together with the witness who has been announced here by the name of Sauer?
A Yes.
Q Do you know whether at Zelozow the field post office was located in the vicinity of your garrison?
A We were not stationed at Zelozow. The supply unit was at Bogdanovka. We only stayed there one night. However, we didn't use that Army post office. For the most part wherever there was a supply unit there would also be a post office of the Division Viking because it belonged to that administrative agency. Most of the employees there were members of the Wehrmacht and they wore the uniform of the Wehrmacht.
Q The field post office went together with the administrative office?
A Yes.
Q Do you know a man by the name of Schlenkrich in the field post office?
A No, I don't know the name at all.
Q The incidents which you have described, and I am referring to the bridge incident at Zelozow, should these things have also been observed by other members of the administrative unit?
A Yes.
Q By what units above all?
A By Rottenfuehrer Luedisch who was in the vehicle.
Q No, I am referring now to the administrative office, by the Bakers' Company or the Butchers' Company?
A Well, he belonged to the administrative office. He was the driver of the vehicle which was usually used by Tschentscher during the times of bivouac.
Q And the administrative office remained at the bridge?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A Yes.
Q And was the Army field post office there too?
A If it was it must have been at the end, the tail end of the column. It must have been the last vehicle.
Q Could people have observed from there what went on?
A No, the tail end of the column was within the city.
Q When Fanslau and Tschentscher let this Jew slide into the swamp, wasn't there a danger for Fanslau and Tschentscher that they themselves would fall into the swamp?
A No. After all they were standing on the road, and they just let the Jew slide on down beyond the road, and they just pushed him down by brutal force.
Q You say that the Jews who were not capable of working any more had been pushed to the bomb craters and that they were shot there?
A Well, they were first pushed into the crater and then they were shot.
Q Wouldn't it have been much simpler to push all these Jews into the swamp also and to let them suffocate there?
A Perhaps it would have been more simple. However, it just wasn't done. Perhaps some of the people actually were disgusted about that. Perhaps Fanslau, above all, was disgusted with it, because he left the unit a very short time afterwards, and went to the Staff of the division.
Q And you maintain that at the bomb crater the Unter or Obersturmfuehrer Braunaagel was also present?
A Yes.
Q And Sell from the Bakers' Company?
A Yes, Oberscharfuehrer Sell from the Bakers' Company?
Q I am now coming back to the incident at Bogdanovka which you have described. Yesterday you told us that by Tschentscher you were chased out of a synagogue when you wanted to obtain a souvenoir there. Where was the synagogue located in Bogdanovka?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A It wasn't in the center of the town.
Q It was in the center of the town?
A No, it was not just in the center of the town.
Q Where was it?
A It was not directly outside, but it was within the city limits.
Q It was outside of the city but within the city limits?
A Yes.
Q Why did you want to obtain a souvenoir from a synagogue?
A Because everybody else was doing it.
Q Because everybody else was doing it?
A Yes.
Q What were you thinking of when you collected that souvenoir?
A Well, I wanted to have a souvenoir from my days as a soldier.
Q What were you trying to get in the form of a souvenoir?
A I wanted some sort of a relic, which was lying around the synagogue.
Q And why did you want one from a synagogue?
A I still don't know today why. Perhaps I did that because everybody else was doing it, and I just didn't want to play an exception to the rule.
Q You did it because everybody else was doing it, and you didn't want to exclude yourself?
A Yes, I didn't want to exclude myself in that sense.
Q And then you happened to go to the synagogue?
A Yes, everybody else was going to the synagogue, and we thought at the time that we could get a special souvenoir there.
Q As a soldier in the east, you, in any case, had to undergo particular strain. Could you have burdened yourself with such a souvenoir and could you have carried it along as part of your luggage?
A Yes. After all as drivers we weren't burdened with these things. Our vehicle was so big that we could have put a lot of things Court No. II, Case No. 4.in it.
For example, at Ravaruska from Stabsscharfuehrer Mueller we had the T.N.T. taken out of hand grenades so we could take them along as souvenoirs, and they were much more of a burden than a small souvenoir which you might have taken along.
Q You would have carried this luggage along and taken them along with you?
A Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Soldiers never have trouble about that. Soldier have always been able to find room for souvenoirs.
DR. KRAUSS: Your Honor, that is why I would be interested to know just what the witness was thinking of, did he want a cross or a chalice or something of that kind.
THE PRESIDENT: It would hardly be a cross in a synagogue.
Q (By Dr. Krauss) Witness, you have stated that Tschentscher put fire to that synagogue?
A Yes.
Q Now, please tell us what preparations he made for that?
A He ordered us to leave the synagogue and then he went out as the last person. He took some straw and then he put the straw afire in the synagogue. Then in the synagogue there were many curtains which are usually easily inflammable. You don't need very much to set afire there. And then synagogues in these garrison villages, many of them were constructed with wood in many parts of the building.
Q Did he do that from the inside or from the outside?
A He took the burning straw in. He took the straw in and then he set fire to it inside. He didn't set it in the middle of the synagogue, but he did it, he put the burning straw directly under the curtains.
Q How do you know that he put the straw in the middle hall of the synagogue?
A I said he did not put it in the middle. He did not go to the middle. He did not go to the center.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Did Tschentscher start this fire by himself?
A Yes.
Q At Bugdanovka the incident also took place with the three Jews?
A Yes.
Q And they were led away by Senn and Schmidbauer?
A Yes.
Q Was Tschentscher or Fanslau in the vicinity at the time?
A I didn't see Tschentscher in the vicinity. I didn't see him when the Jews were transported away, and the incident took place as I have described it before. The Jews were carrying spades on their shoulders, and Oberscharfuehrer Senn marched ahead of them, and they were followed by Rottenfuehrer Schmidbauer. They were taken away -
Q Yes; I am going to put my question now. You didn't see Tschentscher in the vicinity?
A No.
Q Could others besides you also observe how these Jews were taken away?
A Yes.
Q For example, the members of the Bakers' Company?
A They were not there; only the Supply Office was there.
Q And the members of the Butchers' Company?
A They were not there either.
Q How about the members of the administrative office?
A Well, there were only the members of the Supply Office there.
Q Could they see it?
A Yes.
Q And the three Jews were brought to the city limits?
A They were taken a little way out of the village and there they had to dig their own graves.
Q Did you see that?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A No.
Q How do you know it then?
A I don't think that Oberscharfuehrer Senn and Rottenfuehrer Schmidbauer stood there and they dug the graves for the Jews.
Q What you assume, I am not interested in, have you seen it?
THE PRESIDENT: That was an answer to your question. You asked him how do you know that, and he answered that; so you can't complain if he doesn't give you facts.
DR. KRAUS (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT TSCHENTSCHER): Your Honor, I believe that I put the question whether he, himself, saw it.
THE PRESIDENT: How did you hear that?
BY DR. KRAUS:
Q You, yourself, witness, know of the fate of these people, and you only know of their fate from hearsay?
A Rottenfuehrer Schmidbauer himself told me about it.
Q However, you did not see what was done to these people?
A I heard the shots being fired.
Q Please answer my question. You did not see what happened to these people?
A No, I did not see it.
Q You only heard bullets being fired?
A -
Q Please answer my question. You did not see what happened to these people?
A No, I did not see it.
Q You only heard bullets being fired?
A I saw how these people were taken away, and a short time later I heard some shots being fired. After all, you can hear if they are shots from a rifle or shots from a machine pistol.
Q Yes, that is correct. This can be clearly determined.
With regard to your stay at Tarnopol, just where were the units of the administrative battalion located?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A The food office was at a hill outside the city; presumably before that it had been a wireless station of the Red Army. The Bakery Company and the Butchers' Platoon was in the opposite direction. They were outside of the city with their vehicles. Just where the Bakery Company worked, I don't know. However, the Butchers' Platoon worked in the slaughterhouse.
Q To whom was the administration of slaughterhouse at Tarnopol subordinated?
A It was subordinated to Sturmbannfuehrer Kopaladi, as the man in charge of the Butchers' Platoon.
Q Witness, in the slaughterhouse at Tarnopol, wasn't that the slaughterhouse for the entire army?
A I don't think so because I only know from us that here the slaughtering was being done for the Division Wiking. Whether this was a slaughterhouse for the entire army, I don't know. I didn't hear that.
Q However, it is very important. If you want to draw conclusions from the utilizations of labor at the slaughterhouse, then it is important to know who was responsible for the administration of the slaughterhouse, and for the utilization of labor.
A In the morning, when I returned to the cattle which I put on a truck, I saw only SS members there. That was when I delivered the cattle there; and I only saw members from the Butchers' Platoon there who were prepared to carry out the slaughtering of the cattle. I didn't see any members of the Wehrmacht there, nor of the fact that this had been an army slaughterhouse.
Q Did you see whether Fanslau or Tschentscher supervised the work right on the spot?
A No, I didn't see that, and I never claimed that.
Q You have testified about the conversation amongst several officers with regard to the concentration of Jews in ghettoes?
A Yes.
Q How far away from the circle of officers were you, these Court No. II, Case No. 4.officers who had this conversation?
A It must have been not more than three meters.
Q Don't you think that you would have been chased away when such a conversation took place?
A No; because the vehicles were there and we were working on the vehicles. We were just loading food on the vehicles and the deliver of the vehicle had to stand outside it so that he could see just what was being loaded on his vehicle, so that later on no charges could be raised against him that something was missing. He had to know exactly what was put in his vehicle. Therefore, nobody could move away from his place of work there.
Q I am putting this to you because in numerous cases you always were in the immediate proximity of the commanders.
A That was the result of the fact that the commanders also stayed near us and because their meeting place used to be the place where we had to work, and where we worked, after all, there would be the officers from the Food Platoon.
Q I am not coming to Shitomir. You have stated that Oberscharfuehrer Suert had shot six Jews there, before your eyes?
A Not before my eyes; I didn't say that--I heard about it.
Q You heard about it. What was the name of the Oberscharfuehrer?
A It was Suert.
Q. Suert?
A Yes.
Q And he was from the Bakery company. However, you only know about this incident from hearsay?
A Yes, I only know of it from hearsay.
Q I come now to Byelaya-Tserkow. According to your description, a Jew appeared in your bivouac?
A Yes, apparently, he didn't know any more where he should go. He tried to hide someplace. From our valley, where our bivouac was Court No. II, Case No. 4.located, one could not see clearly against the bushes that vehicles were parked there.
Q Let me ask you this; I haven't asked you a question yet. Who brought this Jew and how did he get into that position there?
A Who brought the Jew, we didn't know at first, and it was only found out later on that a transport of Jews was taken through Byelaya-Tserkow, and I assume that this Jew had succeeded to escape from this transport.
Q Was he brought into your bivouac by other SS men?
A No.
Q In what area did this Jew appear? Did he appear in the Food unit or did he appear in the bivouac or the Bakery Company?
A He appeared in the bivouac area of the Food. Unit.
Q Consequently, the other members of the Supply Office must have observed the incident?
A They did not observe the incident, but a few people, like SS-man Torn--and I can't recall any other names at the moment because it is impossible for me to recall all the names; just what the names of the comrades were.
Q What happened to the Jew?
A Well, he was shot by Sturmbannfuehrer Tschentscher. When he heard the shouting of the people in the bivouac that a civilian was running through the camp, and then the shout went up that a Jew was shot.
Q Where was he shot?
A In the bivouac.
Q What bivouac?
A In the bivouac of the Food Office.
Q Besides you, all the other members of the Supply Office were able to observe this incident?
A Yes, and especially Torn who helped in the pursuit of this Jew. Apparently they wanted to hold the Jew.
Q What reason did Tschentscher give for shooting this Jew?
A He didn't give us any reason at all. Once he had accomplished his deed, Tschentscher walked away.
Q Just how many shots did Tschentscher fire?
A Three or four shots.
Q What did he fire with?
A He used his pistol; I assume it was his pistol because he help it in his hands.
Q How far away were you from where the incident took place?
A It must have been eleven or twelve meters.
Q Eleven or twelve meters?
A Yes.
Q What was done with the Jew then?
A I had work to do at my vehicle, and I didn't look into the matter any more.
Q You didn't look into the matter any more?
A No.
Q You didn't see whether he was dead?
A I assumed that after four or five shots were fired, he was dead, since it could be clearly seen that he was about to collapse after the first shot, and he didn't have the strength to get up.
Q I am now coming to the incident at Fidjocki. Witness, what is insubordination?
A I don't know that name.
Q You don't know it?
A No; it is a foreign word, I think.
Q This morning, when the question was put to you by the Prosecution, whether Tschentscher had pulled out his pistol against Kirsch because he had been guilty of insubordination, you answered the question in the affirmative.
A Well, he refused to accept any orders.
Q Well, now you know it again.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A This morning the interpreter said not complying with orders and he did not use this foreign word.
Q -- This morning the word insubordination has been used.
A Yes, but not by the interpreter; I only heard that he refused to accept the orders.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute.
DR. VON STAKELBERG (For Defendant Fanslau): Your Honor, before the Tribunal adjourns for today, I would like to recall once more my request that the witness should be asked not to talk about the cross examination and the results of the presentation of evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, let's see what the word was which the witness heard. How was the word insubordination translated?
INTERPRETER SPITZ: I used both words: insubordination and the German word, Befehlsverweigerung.
THE PRESIDENT: This morning -
DR. KRAUS: Your Honor, I cannot state it for certain, but I want to inform you that it is my opinion that the word insubordination was used in the German translation this morning in that form.
INTERPRETER SPITZ: Both words were used.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness remembers it; the interpreters remember it. Do you remember it, Dr. Schmidt?
DR. VON STAKELBERG: I don't remember it because I don't hear the German translation.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes.
That will be all for tonight. Before we adjourn, witness, I want to caution you not to talk to anybody about what has happened in court here today.
WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You are not to discuss it, not to talk about it, to anybody, because you are coming back here tomorrow. Do you understand?
WITNESS: Yes Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: And will you do that.
WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until tomorrow morning at ninethirty.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until nine-thirty tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 20 August 1947, at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of Military Tribunal II, Case LV, in the matter of the United States of America, against Oswald Pohl, et al., defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 20 August 1947, 1100-1630, Justice Toms, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America, and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, counsel for the defendant Sommer wants to interrupt the testimony of this witness, and put on a witness for Sommer because his witness, Sanner, has to return to Dachau, I believe it is. It is rather inconvenient to do that, but I am willing to make that concession, and I think that the defense counsel probably are also.
THE PRESIDENT: This witness may be withdrawn. If there is no objection he may remain in the courtroom while the defendant Sommer's witness is here.
Upon certificate of the prison physician, the defendant Volk will be excused from further attendance of this session of court because of illness, until further notice.
Mr. ROBBINS: The witness Sanner will be here in just one moment, I should like to say first, this is a Prosecution witness, who is being called for cross examination. We have put in an affidavit of the witness Sanner, which was put in on cross examination of Mummenthey, and if it pleases the Tribunal, we would like to ask him just a very few questions before he is cross examined.
THE PRESIDENT: That is Sanner, S-E-N-N-E-R.
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, your Honor.
DR. KRAUSS: (Dr. Krauss for the defendant Tschentscher.) If the Tribunal please, may I say something?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. KRAUSS: I would like to pass on some information on the cross examination of this witness. So far as I know defense counsel for the defendant Pohl is essentially interested in the interrogation of this witness. This is a surprise witness at this moment. Would it perhaps be possible to arrange for the presence of the defense counsel for the defendant Pohl. Could you wait until he is here? I am informed, if the Tribunal please, that my colleague Dr. Seidl has been informed.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Dr. Seidl in the building?
DR. KRAUSS: I think so, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Robbins, would you have one of your associates call defense information center. He may be there.
MR. ROBBINS: Your Honor, I noticed also that Mummenthey's attorney is not present, and the affidavit of this witness gave also information concerning Mummenthey. I assume that counsel would notify his associate.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, they did not know he was going to be put on at this moment. Let's find his affidavit, first. Have your the reference of that?
MR. ROBBINS: It is 3104, which was put in by Mr. McHaney on cross examination of Mummenthey.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have the exhibit reference?
MR. ROBBINS: I don't have it with me.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL: It is 621.
MR. ROBBINS: Exhibit No. 621. I am afraid, your Honor it is not in one of the books as yet. It will be in Book 26. It is some of those looseleaf exhibits. 519 is the last exhibit in Book 25.
THE PRESIDENT: Well; let's swear this witness anyway.
WOLFGANG SANNER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: Stand up and raise your right hand and repeat this oath after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth, and will withhold and add nothin.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
MR. ROBBINS: We have just a very few questions we would like to ask him, and if the Court please, I think it would shorten the proceedings if I could have Mr. Wolf ask him just a few questions in German.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WOLF:
Q Witness, will you please give us your full name?
A Wolfgang Sanner.
Q Have you a nickname?
A My usual name is "Wolfgang".
Q Witness, you gave us an affidavit on 25 April 1947, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q About that affidavit I want to have a few additional explanatory words by way of explanation of paragraph 44. Perhaps I will put a few more questions to you about it. Is it correct that in 1944 and 1945, as is stated in your affidavit of 25 April 1947, such letters reached you which were signed "I.V.Sommer" on them, which was during the period of time when you were working on labor assignment in Mauthausen?
A Yes.
Q Is it also correct that in a number of these letters Sommer mentioned inmates by name, and gave orders about certain inmates. What sort of orders were they?
A So far as I can remember there were three letters that inmates were not to be transferred to other camps, or, else, inmates, who somehow, were not to be employed in the Camp Mauthausen in some labor assignment, or, were not to leave the camp.
Q What happened after that to the inmates who were named by Sommer in this letter?
AAfter approximately three or five days, we received notification that these inmates had died.
Q Were most of these inmates foreigner?
A Yes, so far as I can remember they were Russians and Poles.
Q What deduction did you make from the notification of fatalities and Sommer's letters?
A The deduction I reached was that this notification of fatalities was connected with Sommer's letter, because liquidations were carried out three or five days later.
Q What were these orders which reached your department labor assignment from Sommer usually called?
A We usually called them when inmates had died "Special Treatment".
Q Is the term "Special Treatment" as you have described it in paragraph 44 in your affidavit of 25 April 1947 to be understood in that sense?
A Yes.
MR. WOLF: That is all.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. BELZER: (For the defendant Karl Sommer)
Q Witness, before putting any other questions to you, I want to say a few words about this subject. Can you state before this Tribunal at what time the Office D-II was told about the names of inmates by the special department for labor assignments in concentration camps?
A The names of the inmates were communicated in letters to D-II, as I said before.
Q What were these letters concerned with? What type of inmates were they?
A These inmates were skilled workers.
Q You stated that in these letters, which you saw with Sommer's signature, orders had been given that those inmates, whose names were communicated had been skilled workers, were either not to be transferred from Mauthausen to another camp, or, if they had been transferred from another camp to Mauthausen. They were not to be used for labor assignment, is that correct?
A Yes, quite.
Q This content of the letters such as you have referred to surely pre-supposes that previously other orders had been issued. For instance, in one case an order by Office D-II that inmates whose names were mentioned who were to work as skilled workers, locksmiths, carpenters, or anything like that were to be transferred from Concentration Camp Mauthausen to Concentration Camp Dachau, for instance?
A Yes.
Q And then came the orders of which you have spoken here, which were allegedly signed by Sommer, that those transfers of inmates were not to be carried out?
AAs I do not remember the whole of this correspondence, it is possible that there were other letters previous to the one I have mentioned.
Q Well the office D-II must had these names from somewhere?
A The names were being communicated by the camp.
Q Where and when?
A I remember, for instance, special directives which stated that inmates who were skilled workers were to be transferred to another camp. On the basis of these orders the camp communicated the names, and from that whole matter, of course, ensued a correspondence, saying that they were not to be transferred; or that they might be transferred, or, that they were dead, that also happened, and other things of that sort.