A Yes.
DR. SEIDL: I have no further questions.
DR. BELZER: (for defendant Sommer): May it please the Tribunal, the interrogation by Dr. Froeschmann gives me cause to put one single question to the witness.
BY DR. BELZER:
Q Witness, you speak repeatedly of punitive companies. Is it known to you that the punitive companies were discontinued after 1943 or 1944?
A I know nothing about that. All I know is that the punitive company towards in one of the late years, which I do not remember was camouflaged in the statistical reports.
DR. BELZER: Thank you.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Witness, in paragraph 44 of your affidavit the English translation roads as follows: "I myself read letters in 1944, 1945 signed 'for Karl Sommer." Do you mean the letters were signed for him, or by him?
WITNESS: They were signed by him. The signature below underneath the letter.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: I notice further in paragraph 44 that you say that inmates were mentioned in these letters by name, for whom Sommer ordered special treatment. How many letters - or about how many letters did you receive signed by Sommer ordering special treatment for inmates?
WITNESS: About three letters by Sommer which were of that type, is what I have seen. About three.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Now, can you give us an estimate of the number of inmates that were named in these three letters?
WITNESS: There were about two to four inmates named in those letters.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: In each letter, or the three letters together?
WITNESS: No, no, in each letter two or three inmates, or perhaps four, as far as I can remember.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Did those inmates receive special treatment?
WITNESS: These inmates have been killed about three or five days later. I received a report about the fatalities.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: All told, your affidavit contains 45 paragraphs. You were asked certain paragraphs in this affidavit. Others you were not asked about. Those that you were not asked about, do the statements as outlined and contained in these paragraphs speak the truth?
WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Were all the inmates who were mentioned in Sommer's letters -- did they die?
WITNESS: Of these three or four letters which I still recall they were all killed; they died, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That would perhaps mean 10 or 12?
WITNESS: About 12 people, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you know yourself how they died -- what brought about their death?
WITNESS: I cannot give you precise details. As far as I remember those were - as it was called - "shot while trying to escape." That is, they were sent to the punitive company, to the quarry - then shot while attempting to escape.
THE PRESIDENT: These were skilled workers, you said.
WITNESS: Yes, they were skilled workers.
THE PRESIDENT: Why would they be sent to the quarry?
WITNESS: What I assumed at the time was that it was for Sommer's letter. I saw no other order.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Sommer's letter, you said, merely asked that as skilled workers they are not to be transferred from Mauthausen.
WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It didn't say anything about assigning them to the quarry, did it?
WITNESS: No.
THE PRESIDENT: And it didn't say anything about special treatment.
WITNESS: No. All he said was that for some reason or other they were not to be sent out to do work nor were they to be sent to another camp.
THE PRESIDENT: They were to stay in Mauthausen?
WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you get the reports of their death, and the reason, the cause of death?
WITNESS: What we received was simply the report that they were dead. Altogether reports normally said - "Inmate has died" - even if they had been beaten or flogged to death; the exceptions were executions, and there the term "execution" was put into the report; or else the other two points also "suicide by running into an electrically charged wire" -
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I am just interested in these particular inmates. They were healthy, skilled workers, were they?
WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you think of any reason for wanting to kill such healthy, skilled workers?
WITNESS: There were so many people killed in Mauthausen your Honor, that one cannot always give the reason in an individual death. It was part of the day's program that inmates were killed.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, usually they were the sick or worn out prisoners that were killed -- isn't that true?
WITNESS: The worn out ones, or the ones who were ill, in some cases were sent to recreational homes, as they were called, were they were gassed.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, no matter how they were killed they didn't kill valuable workmen, did they, as a rule?
WITNESS: The camp did not mind too much; if and when the commandant, or the protective custody leader, or somebody, a block leader was dissatisfied for some reason they did not care whether they were skilled workers, or assistant workers, or Poles or Russians.
THE PRESIDENT: The attitude of the camp commander was that he had more to do with it than the state of health of an inmate?
WITNESS: I am sorry I didn't quite understand the question.
(Question repeated by interpreter.)
A Yes. That is quite correct.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Now, the punishment details. Who assigned inmates to the punishment details, the penal details.
A The inmates were sent to the penal details by the protective custody camp leader, by the commandant, by the administrative leader, and by a number of lower leaders - roll call leaders and so forth.
Q. But never by anyone in the factories or plants?
A. The factories also, when they had committed an offense. I am not informed about the details, but then an inmate would be sent to the cebak detauk bext nirbubg.
Q. But the decision would lay with the commander or one of his subordinates?
A. Yes.
Q. All right.
BY MR. WOLF: Your Honor, I have a few more questions.
Q. Witness, it is not true that the inmates who were working in the penal detail in Mauthausen in the quarry, were part of DEST quite as much as the other inmates who were working for DEST?
A. Yes.
Q. How do you know that?
A. I know that because as far as the accounts were concerned which we sent to DEST, they listed the number of inmates, all the details who worked in the quarry these were contained therein.
Q. It it true, witness, that on a number of occasions you talked to Walter, Grimm and Eisenhoefer, who were then the managers of DEST in Mauthausen in this respect?
A. Yes.
DR. SEIDL. (Counsel for Defendant Pohl): I object to this question. The witness is to answer himself and not simply say yes to a question, the contents of which have been put into his mouth.
THE PRESIDENT: How could you ask a witness a question whether he had talked to a certain man without mentioning the man's name? That isn't a leading question. There is no other way to get the information. "Did you ever see Dr. Seidl?" "Did you ever see Mr. Wolf?" How, other-wise, can you ask the question?
DR. SEIDL: In my opinion, the Prosecution should have asked: "Have you ever talked to somebody of a certain enterprise?" If the witness then remembers names, it is all in order. But if he doesn't, then the question *---* tion has been answered in the negative therby.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. The objection is overruled.
BY MR. WOLF:
Q. Will you please answer my question.
A. I talked to Walter, Grimm and Eisenhoefer who were with the DEST at the time. I talked to them in the office of the Labor Allocation Office.
Q. What were the contents of these conversations?
A. We were concerned with a number of problems in these conversations. For one, DEST wanted to have some inmates. On the other hand, as I said before, releases were becoming an acute problem. Then we had the problem that they no lawyer did not want to have certain inmates who were not suitable for the work
Q. Is it correct, therefore, that if you sent the bills for DEST you listed this statistical information which you had gathered from the statistical report, and based your bills on that fact?
A. Yes.
Q. Did the statistics contain the fact that these inmates who were working for DEST in the quarry, were listed as punative detail?
A. No; the way they were listed was as stone carriers.
Q. What was a stone carrier in Mauthausen?
A. He was in the punative company.
Q. And now, another matter. Your department, labor allocation, in the camp Mauthausen...Is is correct that you received orders, instructions and directives from the office D-2 addressed to the Labor Allocation Department? It was not always necessary that these decrees had to go through the camp commandant.
A. Oh, yes, as all the other mail, it reached first the commandant.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Seidl, that is a real leading question. That is a dandy.
DR. SEIDL: I have not objected because the answer of the witness was in the negative.
BY. MR. WOLF:
Q. Please continue.
A. The mail, the whole mail of the camp, went through the commandant in as much as we, as inmates, saw the mail at all. In how far secret or confidential mail was sent to the various agencies direct -- I am wholly Labor Allocation Office in closed envelopes, direct. But I can't tell you what was said in them. I know that because on Schuetz's desk a number of letters from the WVHA were lying around, the contents of which I do not knew.
MR. WOLF: I have not further questions. Your Honor--One more question, which Mr. Robbins has asked me to ask, Your Honor.
BY MR. WOLF:
Q. Is it correct, witness, that the Labor allocation Officer in Nauthausen--
DR. SEIDL: I am afraid I must object. This is obviously a leading question.
THE PRESIDENT: He hasn't even asked him a question. You are afraid it is going to be leading.
DR. SEIDL: From the way the question started, it is quite obvious that the answer is to be put into the witness's mouth. Any questions which begins: "Is it true.." It it correct.." is obviously a loading question, by its nature. I am unable to see that the Prosecution would ask a question beginning with "Is it true..or correct.." If he expects the witness to say no.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, maybe that is exactly what he docs expect, Now, you remember what you said, Dr. Seidl, that any question that begins "Is it true..." is a leading question. You remember, now, you said that; you will find that hanging right around your neckbefore you get through.
Go ahead with your question, and then we will rule on it.
BY MR. WOLF:
Did the Labor Allocation Officer in Mauthausen receive orders from the office D-2 in Berlin?
A. Yes, Of course.
Q. What sort of orders?
A. All orders which came--the whole mail which at all concerned labor allocation, be they transfer of inmates, technicalities of the work, new statistics; anything connected with the allocation of inmates.
MR. WOLF: That is all, Your Honor.
BY JUDGE MUSMANNO:
Q. Witness, may I ask a question, please.
Going back just from the moment to the subject of the letters which you received from Sommer, do I understand that these letter actually specifically mentioned various names of individuals who were to be subjected to "special treatment?"
A. No, Your Honor. These letters which I received from Sommer concerned inmates whose names were mentioned, who for some reason, were not to be used for work in the camp, or were to remain in the camp, or else were not to be transferred to another camp.
Q. Well, then, how did they become subjects for "special treatment?"
A. Because those inmates, then after three of five days, were dead; and we inmates used the term "special treatment" quite generally. We knew of no other expression except "special treatment" when an inmate for some abscure reason was treated differently from the others and then suddenly died soon afterwards.
Q. Well, did you understand from the letters that they were eventualy to become victims of "special treatment?"
A. I personally assumed sc--si did we inmates---that the death of the inmated was referred to by the letter, and that that amounted to the "special treatment".
Q. Very well.
DR. FROESCHMANN (Counsel for defendant Mummenthey).
If the Tribunal please, I have a very few questions which have arisen from Mr. Wolf's cross-examination.
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q. Witness, you spoke of the statistics just now which were drawn up in Mauthausen concentration camp concerning the inmates who had been employed to DEST.
A. This was not so much a matter of statistics, but merly the bills which we made out on the basis of the statistics. The DEST statistics consisted of a card index which named the inmated for DEST.
A. And then you sent a bill to DEST concerning the hours of work done by the inmates?
A. Yes.
Q. Did that bill show where the inmates were working?
A. No, the bill simply read "Skilled workers...assistant workers.." total this was on the front --and on the back side: "so-and--so many workers 50 pfennigs per hour..1 mark 50.." and this was added up.
Q. There fore, the term "stone carriers" was not named in the bill?
A. No, it was not named in the bill. But they were on the sale labor voucher in merely on the back.
Q. The DEST did not see that, did they?
A. Oh, yes, These little vouchers came in from DEST. I don't know from whom. The detachment loader signed it, and there it said on the back, that fifty inmates were working as locksmiths--one thousand on stone work.. stone carriers..and so on. And this was added up, and this we called the work vouchers.
Q. Probably misunderstood you before. You mean stone carriers?
A. Yes, I meant stone carriers--not stone process workers.
Q.- Another question. Do you remember whether, in these conversations between Walter, Grimm and the others, and yourself, of the DEST management, with the labor allocation leader, certain wishes by the DEST were voiced concerning the feeding, clothing, and so forth?
A.- I was not present when those conversations took place. I could not tell you. As an inmate I was only called in when something special was neede, such as card-index files, or a list of professions, and so forth.
Q.- The Prosecution have used the term. "In this respect". Did you talk about that particular problem? And you said yes to that question, What did you mean by that?
A.- If I remember that question correctly, they were talking then about the question of releases of inmates.
Q. That was the point about which I have already asked you questions. When there was a request for release from Berlin, DEST was contacted.
DR. FROESCHMANN: No further questions.
DR. BELZER (Counsel for defendant Sommer): I believe that the witness has not fully understood Judge Musmanno's last question. In order to clarify this I would appreciate it if I might put another question to this witness.
BY DR. BELZER:
Q.- Witness, Judge Musmanno asked you whether you could see from the letters that the "special treatment" which the inmates had to suffer later on was to be carried out. What I would like to ask you is this: Did you see Sommer's letters before you heard the reports of fatalities or afterwards.
A.- Letters of Sommer's of that type, I saw before the reports of fatalities came in.
Q.- Before you received the reports about fatalities and did not know where these inmates had been taken to -- did you deduce from the contents of those letters that for those inmates "special treatment" had been ordered?
A.- When I saw the letters I deduced nothing at all. We simply had to registre them, first of all; give them a reference number, and see to it that those inmates would not go away. With the masses of letters which I saw I did not think too much about them. Only afterwards when the reports of fatalities came in, we said, "well, well, another case of "Special treatment."
Q.- Therefore, the "special treatment", about which you heard later, you, yourself brought in connection with these letters?
A.- Yes, that was my firm conviction.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal may remove this witness and bring the witness Otto to the stand.
Witness Sanner excused.)
GUNTHER OTTO - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION - Continued
DR. KRAUS (Counsel for defendant Tschentscher): May it please the Court, with the permission of the Court I wish to continue with the cross-examination.
BY DR. KRAUS:
Q.- Herr Otto, under what name did you stay in Wasserburg?
A.- Under my ordinary name.
Q.- When you were in Wasserburg, had you reported to the police in Wasserburg?
A.- Yes.
Q.- I put it to you, witness: that no registration with the police in Wasserburg exists of yours.
A.- I reported to the police in Wasserburg on the basis of my release and the certificate of release signed by an officer.
Q.- You maintain that you registered with the Wasserburg police under your own name of Otto?
A.- Yes, I did. I lived on Marienplatz, 8, with a family. I had my ration card there, and without registering with the police I would not have been given a food ration card at all.
Q.- The most important thing to me is, had you registered under the name of Otto?
A.- Yes, I reported under the name of Otto there.
Q.- Witness, what is your father's name? Is it the same one?
A.- My father is called Gustav Otto.
Q.- Witness, under what name were you in the Lunatic Asylum of Eggelfing-Haar?
A.- As a woman had denounced me, I was not arrested as Otto in Casserburg, but as somebody called Johann Torsten, alia Guenther Otto, and under that name I went to Eggelfing-Haar.
Q.- Under which name?
A.- Johann Torsten.
Q.- In the Lunatic Asylum of Eggelfing-Haar, were you told why you were under medical supervision?
A.- No.
Q.- Do you know, Herr Otto, what schizophrenia is?
A.- I do not know the term, no.
Q.- Herr Otto, have you registered with the police here?
A.- As long as I am living in the Witnesses House, I do not have to register with the police, I have been told.
Q.- Herr Otto, if Hauptsturmfuehrer Schaefer, or Main sergeant Mueller, or Jacke1 and others, would confirm before this Tribunal that Hauptsturmfuehrer Braunagel throughout the whole period of the advance which you have described was in Lublin in the hospital would you still maintain your description that Braunagel had shot at the Jews in the bomb crater?
A.- Yes; for the simple reason that when we went on from Lublin to Zamosk, I had coal on my vehicle and Braunagel ordered me in Zamosk to unload the coal because the bakery column could not use that type of coal for their baking -- the ovens would not work.
Q.- Where is Zamosk?
A.- It is south of Lublin, in the direction of Lemberg.
Q.- Is it before Zclozow or after Zclozow?
A.- Before Zclozow.
Q.- And in Zclozow Braunagel was still present?
A.- Yes.
Q.- I shall now come to the efents in Fyidorky. You told us, Herr Otto, that Unterscharfuehrer or Oberscharfuehrer Goesch -
A.- In Fyidorky?
Q.- Where was it that you told us about Unterscharfuehrer Goesch?
A.- I know Oberscharfuehrer Birk, Unterscharfuehrer Goesch is unknown to me.
Q.- You told us the story that Tschentscher had a member of his unit in front of him for insubordination, and threatened him with his pistol.
A.- That was not Unterscharfuehrer Goesch; that was an SS-man Otto Kirsch.
Q.- SS-man Otto Kirsch -- and where was that?
A.- In Fyidorky.
Q.- Will you please tell us on what occasion this incident occurred?
A.- Some cattle had run away from the butcher's column. Two were sent down to catch the cattle again. On that occasion they found a civilian whom they identified as a Jew, and brought him back with them. He was running through the village. He was carrying a bag, and he was probably walking somewhere. He wanted to go somewhere.
Q.- Where was he taken to?
A.- Into the camp.
Q.- What camp was that?
A.- The Supply Office camp; it was the camp of the Supply Office and the Butcher's Platoon.
Q.- Supply Office and Butcher's Platoon?
A.- Yes, both of them were in the same village.
Q.- And was Kirsch one of then who brought the Jew back?
A.- No, Kirsch was busy slaughtering. He was probably present when these people had fetched the oxen back.
Q.- Who brought the Jew back to the camp?
A.- I don't remember the names of those people. It might have been that it was Mueller, and somebody called Lach -- SS-men Mueller and Lach.
Q.- And what happened then?
A.- I assure that Kirsch was standing around the camp.
Q.- You said just now that Kirsch was not on the camp square.
A.- Of course he was on the camp square. You asked me whether Kirsch brought the Jew back, whether he was present, and I said no, he was not present.
Q.- Was the slaughtering done on the camp square?
A.- Not on the camp square itself, but in its neighborhood.
Q.- You said just now that Kirsch was busy slaughtering.
A.- I didn't say that because the SS-men who were busy slaughtering worked in shifts, and had every second twenty-four hours off.
Q.- Did you see the Jew yourself on the camp square?
A.- No.
Q.- You didn't see him?
A.- No, I didn't see the Jew myself because I was busy on my truck.
Q.- Did you yourself see or observe how Tschentscher got into contact with the Jew?
A.- No.
Q.- Do you know from your own observation what happened to the Jew?
A.- Not from my own observation.
Q.- How is it you know that the order to shoot this Jew came from the Orderly Room?
A.- Because Kirsch has told us that it came from the Orderly Room, and he had received the order from the Orderly Room to shoot down the Jew with the rifle.
Q.- Herr Otto, did you ever experience it that the Orderly Room of a company or so would give the order to shoot down a civilian, or something?
A.- No.
Q.- The whole incident in Fyidorky is based on hersay?
A.- Yes.
Q.- And from whom have you heard it?
A.- From Kirsch himself.
Q.- I shall now talk about something else, and that is the incident in Dnyepropetrovsk. Another chapter now.
Herr Otto, were the units of the administrative battalion over situated in Dnyepropetrovsk?
A.- No; they were not there, ever.
Q.- You, yourself, went to Dnyepropetrovsk absent without leave?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Will you tell us how you were brought into contact with the SD detachments there?
A.- I went from my vehicle which was about 50 Kms from Dnyepropetrovsk into the town on a number of occasions in order to get food on the basis of my pay book and also my pay.
Q.- Where did you obtain the pay for your pay book?
A.- At the proper place, the local commandant's office.
Q.- Herr Otto, did you, while AWOL, dare to get your money and your pay on your pay book?
A.- Most certainly. I had also a number of papers with me which showed that I was going to fetch my vehicle from there.
Q.- You said just now that you received your pay through your pay book?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Do you know that people who have gone AWOL -- all units of the army and SD and so forth are informed with photographs, with circulars, with all sorts of police methods, and that it was for you an enormous risk to go and get your pay with your pay book from a strange office?
A.- What I can tell you about that is that I could not be regarded as a man who was AWOL at the time. I was perfectly normally on the advance with Oberscharfuehrer Senn, and the VE Squadron. I simply had broken down with my vehicle, and Oberscharfuehrer Senn had given me the order to go on to the next farm, and I could tell you that in October, November, and December until my arrest,I couldn't officially be regarded as being AWOL at all.
Q.- Herr Otto, when you left the troops in Nowomoskowsk, you did not regard yourself as being AWOL?
A.- As far as I personally was concerned -- yes. But I was not officially. I did not simply go to the commandant's office and say, I want my pay book; I am a deserter.
Q.- Herr Otto, I put it to you that, according to the usages of any army -- not only the German army -- you do not get your food rations on your pay book?
A.- Why not?
Q.- Please let me finish my question first. If the Wehrmacht had travel orders, for instance, marching orders, just as here, and only on the basis of such papers would a stranger give you food.
A.- But I should like to tell you, Doctor, that you know very little about conditions in the advance through Russia. Conditions in the German army through the advance in Russia were very confused.
THE PRESIDENT: And now, recess until a quarter to two.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunals will recess until 1345.
(A recess was taken.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, August 20, 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
GUENTHER OTTO - Resumed CROSS-EXAMINATION - Continued.
DR. KRAUSS (Attorney for the Defendant Tschentscher): May it please the Tribunal, Your Honors, I now would like to continue my cross-examination of this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: I request that the witness should explain to us the matters with regard to his pay book, with the permission of the defense counsel.
DR. KRAUSS: Your Honor, in this direction I do not have any additional questions.
THE PRESIDENT: You asked him the question, "How he could possibly have got his pay and have his pay book when he was absent without leave. The witness wants to complete or explain his answer. He has a right to.
DR. KRAUSS: I do not object, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: I want to say that the question of the defense counsel does not have any basis at all, because in the Fall of 1941 he was not informed about the condition of the German Army in the south of Russia.
DR. KRAUSS: Your Honor, I now do object to this answer, which I have just heard, by the witness. The witness cannot know as to whether I have any knowledge about the conditions of the Southern Army or not.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you can tell the defense counsel and the Tribunal what the conditions were in 1941 of the German Army in the Ukraine that you spoke about. Not too long now.
THE WITNESS: Otherwise you wouldn't have asked the question.
Because of the bad conditions of vehicles, particularly in the Viking Division, countless vehicles had left the convoy and this was the case especially during the advance. All these people did not receive any travel orders, but they did receive their pay and food with the Frontleitstellen. Furthermore, the Division Viking had a reputation, the Division Viking was known as being an undisciplined pig stay in the other headquarters and other army agencies. The officers of the SS companies thought that the Wehrmacht in any case would keep on sending their people back to the Viking Division. However, I would also like to state that with a typewriter and with a sheet of paper, any person could have written out his own orders in the German Wehrmacht. Furthermore, the paymasters at the local treasuries were authorized to pay out Army pay in this case. If the defense counsel had inquired about the conditions before, then he would have known before what I have just stated.
DR. KRAUSS: Your Honor, is is not up to the witness to discuss my knowledge of the conditions.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand, That's right. Now go ahead to the next point, please.
BY DR. KRAUSS:
Q. Witness, what did you have to do with the SD in Dnjepropetrowsk?
A. I stayed there over night.
Q. You stayed with a unit of the SD?
A. Yes, that was in the building of the Einsatzkommando 6 of the SD.
Q. Who was the Commanding Officer of Einsatzkommando 6?
A. I wasn't able to find that out at the time, and I was not interested in finding out.
Q. Were your papers checked if you stayed over night?
A. To what extent?
Q. Was your pay book and were your orders checked?
A. First of all, I didn't go there regularly, by way of the orderly room, but I came there by members of the Guard Company of the SD Detachment. They just let me stay there in their room. Of course, it was natural that these people knew that I had my pay book, because otherwise I would not have dared to have stayed in the house of the SD, especially.
Q. Was your pay book checked?
A. No.
Q. Where was this detachment located?
A. Well, it was across the street from the General Commissioner's Office. I can't recall the name of the street.
Q. What General Commissioner's Office was that?
A. That was the General Commissioner's Office for the area of Dnjepropetrowsk.
Q. How long did you stay there?
A. Where? In the vicinity of Dnjepropetrowsk?
Q. No. In the SD Detachment.
A. Always only one night, when I received my food rations for going to Dnjepropetrowsk.
Q. You only stayed there one night and then you left again?
A. Yes, I went back -- I went back in my vehicle, or had myself taken back by other vehicles.
Q. Where did you stay during all this time?
A. Well, what do you mean with that question?
Q. I want to know where you stayed. You must have stayed some place or other.
A. Well, I stayed at the Kolahose where the vehicle was standing.