This will become Exhibit No. 35.
The next document is Document No. 35. This is an affidavit by the inmate Ewald Schroth, of 30 July 1947, and signed by him on that date and certified to by me on that date. It is interesting for the reasons because he does describe not from the aspect of a plant manager, but from the aspect of inmates, treatment of the inmates at Oranienburg, and, in particular, he also tells us about Mummenthey's behavior, and deals with Mummenthey's behavior towards the inmates. In paragraph 3 he deals with the Punitive Company which have been mentioned so often and he also points out that these Punitive Companies were known to be subordinate to the camp administration exclusively and had nothing to do with the plant management of the DEST. In the first paragraph of this affidavit he deals with the working hours, and the work, and in paragraph 10 he says, "I only knew Mummenthey from his kind side. One time as the result of having a foot injury I lay in my billets. He visited me and inquired after my health. Inspite of the expressed prohibition of the camp commandant, he helped me, and he saw to it that my daughter could visit me." In two outstanding cases, he stated that Mummenthey had helped political inmates, he was one of them, not to be conscripted into the so-called Dirlewanger Division. He then speaks of the numerous privileges which were offered to inmates at Oranienburg, additional pay, better billets, special allotment of cigarettes, and further privileges which were given to them by the plant management. He concludes the affidavit by saying in the conflict known to me which existed between the plant management and the camp commandant, Mummenthey always took the side of the plant management and in so doing, directly or indirectly also of the prisoners. This document will become Exhibit No. 36.
My next document will be Document No. 36, which is on page 14 of my document book.
It is an affidavit of Werner Kahn, who was the plant manager of Neuengamme, who speaks about the equipment and installations of the plant there, in detail. The affidavit is of 29 July 1947, which was signed by him on that date, and certified to by me. The photographs which the witness gave to me then I have already included in the document book, and I ask the Tribunal to accept them now. This document will become Exhibit No. 37.
My next document will be Document No. 37, on page 18 of my Document Book. This is an affidavit of Karl Blumberg, which is dated. 26 July 1947, which was signed by him on that date, and certified to by me. This affidavit refers to Natzweiler, and I was able to also have the plant manager describe the plant there. He describes the good relationship which existed there between the inmates, and the civilian personnel, and he also pointed out that the privileges which had been introduced for the inmates by him in agreement with the Central Agency at Berlin, which was Mummenthey. This will become Exhibit No. 38.
My next document will be Document No. 38. This is an affidavit by Roman Fuerth, who was the construction engineer of the construction department at Oranienburg. It is contained on page 28 of my document book. The affidavit was given on 22 July 1947, and certified to by me. It is extremely extensive and describes in detail how the plant at Oranienburg was established, and then it also deals again with the attitude of the Central Management and the plant management towards the inmates, and like all other affidavits it points out that a large number of the privileges mentioned in paragraph 13 are the result of Mummenthey's initiative. This document will become Exhibit No. 39.
My next document will be Document No. 39. This is an affidavit of the plant director,Carl Peters, dated 26 July 1947, signed by him on that date one certified by Dr. Baumann, the chief physician of the district hospital at Buchenheim, Baden. It refers to the inspection and the actual state of the plant at Sachsenhausen-Oranienburg. This will become Exhibit No. 40.
The next document is Document No. 40. This is an affidavit by the former Vice-President of the German Reichs Bank, Emil Puhl, dated 26 July. It is signed by him on that date, and is certified to by me on the same date. This was done in order to rebut or refute the claim of the Prosecution that the funds which the DEST received from the Gold Discount Bank in 1939 had anything to do with the notorious Reinhardt Action, or any other action of that sort. It describes quite clearly that the funds which the DEST received at that time came from normal funds of the Reichsbank. The document will become Exhibit No. 41.
My next document will be Document No. 41. This is an affidavit of Dr.Karl Maria Hettlage. It refers to various negotiations which took place in the DEST in 1938 and 1939, and which also have already been subject to the Indictment and evidence submitted. I would like to point out that this document will become Exhibit No. 42.
The next document will be Document No. 42, Exhibit No. 43, which is a statement of the protestant vicarage of Hilchenbach to the effect that Karl Mummenthey in spite of being a member of the SS, has been married in church and that his children were baptized.
This will become Exhibit No. 43. Document No. 43 and the following documents describe the mount of work to be done by the inmates at the time at the plant, the DEST itself and compares this work with what is happening at the present time. Document No. 43 becomes Exhibit No. 44. Document No. 44 will become Exhibit No. 45. Document No. 46 will become Exhibit No. 47, and Document No. 46 will become Exhibit No. 46, and, Document 47 will become Exhibit No. 47. I do not want to submit Document No. 45. I only state in this document that the idea of forced labor is still today exercised by one of the Allied Powers, and successfully carried out by the Soviet Union today at Oberschlesia.
Your Honor, I have now completed my presentation of document Book No. 3. and now I still have to deal with Supplement No. 2, which I have already announced this morning, and then furthermore, Document Book No. 4 and Supplement No. 3.
Your Honor, I now would like to discuss a matter which I had announced before. I would like to request a ruling of the Tribunal on that subject. The Tribunal will be able to recall that on 14 April 1947, the Trustee of Property Control at Fulda, Josef Krysiak, was examined in this Tribunal. He tried to very strongly incriminate the DEST and Mummenthey at Mauthausen. The Tribunal will further recall that on 5th August the President of this Court granted me the permission to look at the penal record of this witness should I be able to determine his place of birth and his date of birth. Through the Secretary-General's Office this penal register was obtained, and I received it two days ago. This is an official document which is extremely important. It comes from a German Agency, and it is so important because by means of this penal register I was able to determine that this witness had the effrontery to lie to the Prosecution, the Tribunal and the Defense in the most incredible manner and that he not only here but also in the Milch Trial committed plain perjury. This man who describes himself as the Trustee of Property control at Fulda; he managed to obtain that position there, is a man who has been punished eight times because of embezzlement; and altogether he has been sentenced to twelve years penitentiary and he was already sentenced to death on one occasion, because of different offenses, such as embezzlement, or larcem-a cy, or things of that sort.
When I received this penal register I considered it my duty to investigate and to see whether I could receive his files. Since in the justice case one defendant was connected with these files, it was possible for me to obtain to also the files of the German Courts, and this was the District Court at Nurnberg. This penal file contains the detailed statement of the defendant himself about his life, about his punishments, and about the time he was sent to jail for security reasons. I also have this file here. I received it from the Registry Office of the Prosecution. I do not wait to keep these important files for a long time in my custody, and I request therefore that I can now turn over these files to the Court today. I would like to say the following very briefly on that subject: Your Honor will be able to recall that he himself, as well as the Prosecutor, asked the witness Krysiak, where did you study, what did you study, and what are you by profession. At the time he said that he had studied at Zurich, and at Charlottenburg, had passed his final examination, at the Technical High School in the year of 1936. From the files it becomes evident that Krysiak only received a secondary school education for two years, and that since 1925 for the duration of three years he learned the butcher trade. Then he wandered around, had lived the life of a tramp. It was only interrupted when he had to serve terms in jail. Already in 1930 he had his first conflict with the law, and this was not only with the German courts, but on two occasions he was also in conflict with the Swiss courts in Zurich and Bern. Up to the year of 1936 this penal register did show eight requests for punishments. Your Honor asked the defendant at this time, what is your profession, the Prosecutor asked him, what is your profession, and he stated he was an engineer with a diploma; not a word of that was true.
He has been an underground construction worker; he never went to a technical school, never studied and never passed an examination there, and, he did dare to lie to the Prosecution and to the Tribunal under oath here on two occasions.
The witness Krysiak further stated, upon questioning by the President of the Court, that in the year 1939 he had been arrested by the Gestapo and, without any court proceedings, had been sent to a concentration camp. Perhaps Your Honor can still recall this question. The witness Krysiak then had the unbelievable effrontery to answer to this question of the President, and he said, "Yes, without any trial proceedings, I was sent to a concentration camp, and from the year 1940 until the year 1945 I was at Mauthausen."
However, this file shows that the witness Krysiak in December 1939, because he had falsely described himself as a captain of an engineers unit--and I have the pictures here--was arrested and at the same time he was arrested because he had engaged in bigamy to the greatest extent with women. He had the nerve to go to a delegate of a special military commission which worked with the Messerschmidt plant, and he talked to them at the station in Regensburg, and this man was asked later on, "With whom did you have a conversation there?" and he said that this was an officer who was a member of this commission. Then the person concerned was told that this was not correct, and that is how the whole misrepresentation was uncovered.
The bigamous Krysiak, who is now an official with the Trusteeship Agency at Fulda, was arrested then by the police, by the criminal police, was sent before the investigation judge, and a very extensive investigation was carried out against him. An indictment was prepared against him. He was given a defense counsel, and at Regensburg a trial took place before a regular court. Through this court, because of embezzlement, misrepresentation, nigamy, the wearing of a uniform and the wearing of unauthorized medals, he was sentenced twice to death. This punishment, be decree of the Reich Minister of Justice, was changed by pardon to ten years in jail.
Your Honor, with this speech I want to prove to you that a witness has appeared here who has given a plain perjury and who did not hesitate at endangering the lives of all the defendants here.
May I say one more thing. In the year 1942, in February of that year, he was sentenced, and from the year 1940 on, he was uninterruptedly in penal installations until the end of the year 1942. At the end of the year 1943 this man, as a dangerous habitual criminal, was turned over to the police. Then I believe in the year 1943 he must have been sent to Mauthausen. However, he lied here, and he stated that from 1 January 1940 he was at Mauthausen uninterruptedly until 1945. Everything that the witness has told here about the years 1941 and 1943 he could have heard only through here say. However, I do not want to go into that. Today I want only to show and to prove by submitting the files that a witness has appeared here who has dared to deceive you. None of us up to now would have thought of seeing such an evil criminal in this man.
I shall turn the photographs over to the Tribunal. I have a picture of him in the witness stand and the photograph which was taken by the Criminal Police. The Tribunal can convince themselves that this is the same man.
As a German Defense Counsel, I consider it my duty to say these things in public, because I am convinced that other witnesses also could be found who might have deceived the Tribunal in the same manner, and they may already have sealed the fate of many people concerned.
I shall also point out that the labor book of the witness Krysiak is available here. From this I can prove that this man, without a gap until the year 1939, never worked in the Messerschmitt plant, which he also stated here under oath. All of his testimony consisted of lies from the beginning to the end.
I now ask the Prosecutor, who will probably agree with me, to see to it that, first of all, this man Krysiak, who has managed to become a trustee with the Property Control at Fulda, be sent where he belongs -- to jail, because, first of all, he has not even served the term of imprisonment to which he was sentenced, and then he should also be sentenced because of perjury before the American Military Tribunal, which he has carried out here on two occassions.
That is what I wanted to say, and that is why I "anted to request that these two documents, the penal record of Krysiak and the German penal files -- I would like to turn them in to the Tribunal, so that I shall not have to keep them any longer. In the last two days, I have had a copy made of all the important pages in the file, and this morning I have turned them in to the Secretary General as Supplement No. 2 to my documents. I anticipate that, up to 15 September, these documents will have been copied and translated so that the Tribunal will be able to see the correctness of my speech.
I am now concluding my speech by saying that I regret extremely that the Tribunal has listened to this liar and convict and that they have become a victim of him, just like the Prosecution and the Defense. They did not see to it by obtaining the penal register that such a thing could happen here before an American Tribunal.
May it please the Tribunal, I shall now turn in the file of the District Attorney at the District Court of Nurnberg referring to Krysiak, Josef, at Augsburg, according to the National Safety Law. This is File 261/41, and the documents contained therein and also Document No. 71. This is the penal record which has been handed to me by the Penal Registry Office at Dortmund. This Document No. 71 will become Exhibit No. 47 and 48. I now offer them to the Tribunal.
We could say here in Shakespear's words. The remainder is silent."
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consult with the Prosecuting Attorney during the recess, Dr. Froeschman, and determine what steps shall be taken.
DE. FROESCHMANN: Very well, Your Honor. Thank you.
DR. BELZER (Counsel for defendant Sommer): Your Honor, the tribunal has just taken notice of a request for corrections from my colleague Froeschmann, and it has decided that this correction should be turned over to the Legal Advisor. On 15 August I made a similar request for corrections and submitted it to the Tribunal. I do not know whether the Tribunal has received the translation of this request. I am not dealing with 150 mistakes but with only 31 mistakes, which detract from the actual meaning and which I have discovered in the examinations of the witnesses Rammler, Caesar, and the defendant Sommer as a witness in his own behalf.
I request the Tribunal to rule and to see to it that this request for correction should be treated in the same manner as will be done with the request for correction from my colleague Froeschmann -- that it be turned over to the Legal Advisor.
THE PRESIDENT: You did not serve it on the Tribunal, did you? We didn't get a copy of it.
DR. BELZER: I turned this in through the secretary general's office on 15 August to Military Tribunal No. II.
THE PRESIDENT: We have not received it yet.
DR. BELZER: I can give the Tribunal another copy of the same request today.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, all right. Did you have it translated into English?
DR. BELZER: No. On 15 August I made this request to the Tribunal, and I have not heard anything about it since.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you ready to proceed with your documents now? Have you documents to present?
DR. BELZER: I can offer my Supplement No. 3. However, Supplement No. 4 is missing. This is a single document. However, the two supplements are related to each other. They refer to the affidavit and the testimony of the witness Sanner. Consequently, it would be appropriate to offer both supplements at the same time.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold?
DR. BERGOLD: I have three questions of the defendant Klein.
THE PRESIDENT: After the recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for about fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. BERGOLD: Dr. Bergold for Horst Klein.
I have to put a few questions to Klein concerning the documents submitted this morning by the Prosecution There are only a very few questions.
HORST KLEIN, recalled as a witness in rebuttal.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q Witness, will you repeat your name?
A My name is Horst Klein.
Q I may remind you that you are still on oath and therefore you must tell the Court the pure truth.
A Yes.
Q Witness, todays' documents have referred to the totality of the Lobkowitz reat estate property. Did you have anything to do with the seizure of these estates? Do you still remember the report?
A Yes. As far as the seizure of this estate was concerned, I had nothing to do with it. The property had been seized when I was concerned for the first time with the affair.
Q What was the purpose of the report of the 13th of June, 1940, Exhibit 721, contained in Document Book XXXII?
A I had the order to investigate the possibilities of purchasing the Bilin Mineral Wells and other possible real estate property. The purpose was the purchase of other wells for the Sudetenquell G.m.b.H. I summarized the result of my investigations in my report. I did not negotiate with regard to purchasing this property.
Only as far as the Wells were concerned other investigations went on for a time, details of which I no longer recall. I know that the Bilin Wells was neither purchased by me nor was it seized on behalf of the SS.
Q Witness, the Prosecution has submitted further documents, for instance Document 3786 which was Exhibit 722, and Document 3785, Exhibit 723. These documents, all of which are in Book XXXII are related to documents submitted by the Prosecution in Book XXVI. They are documents 3788 which is Exhibit 632 and Document 3787 which is Exhibit 633. All these documents constitute a correspondence of Hohberg, in some cases with you and in some cases with Pohl. What were the connections between this correspondence and the Lobkowitz property?
A This correspondence refers to the Bilin Wells but not to the total estate of Lobkowitz.
Q Now, if in the beginning of these letters it says, "Negotiations re Lobkowitz matters", and in the text, for instance in exhibit 722, Bilin is specifically mentioned, was the reference Lobkowitz up on top completely correct or was it an abbreviation?
A It would have been more correct to call it Bilin Well.
DR. BERGOLD: If the Tribunal please, I would like to point to one more matter in this connection. In Exhibit 633, which is Document 3787 in Book XXVI of the Prosecution, the term "negotiations" has been translated every time as "transaction." This translation is wrong. The interpreter just now has translated correctly "negotiation" which I wanted to point out specifically.
Otherwise I have no further questions to the defendant in connection with this problem.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, you said that the property had already been seized when you came into the picture. When was the property of Max Lobkowitz first seized?
A I cannot give you the date. All I know is that the property had been seized.
Q Can you say that it was before or after June, 1940?
A June '40, you mean?
Q Yes.
A It must have been before that.
Q Well, why is it that in December '40 Hohberg writes to you that"we are now ready to send out the confiscation decree?"
A That seems to be the famous confusion between seizure and confiscation. I spoke about seizure.
Q And you testify that it was seized prior to June, and by whom was it seized?
A By whom was it seized I cannot tell you with any certainty. I assume that it was the State Police Agency, Reichenberg.
Q And is it your testimony that the SS did not at any time operate any of the property of Lobkowitz?
A I only paid attention to this affair as long as I was connected with it, and as I remember this that was during the time of this correspondence.
Once the Bilin Wells were not to be purchased I was no longer interested in the matter. Therefore I am unable to tell you today that something was purchased by other agencies, nor can I tell you that it wasn't. All I can say was at that time the matter vanished from my eyes.
Q You made the report to Pohl that it was desirable to acquire the entire property. Can you tell us why the SS did not acquire the entire property?
AAfter seven years I cannot yell you that with absolute certainty, but after having read the report it seems to me the stumbling block was the purchase price.
Q And you say today that you cannot remember whether the SS actually operated any of this property?
A No, I didn't say that I didn't remember. All I can say is that at that time the affair vanished from my ken, and I do not know whether some of it was later on taken over by some other agency or not taken over, because I cannot make statements about a matter of which I have no knowledge.
Q If the SS had taken over this property which had already been seized by the Reich, to whom would the purchase price have to be paid? You say the price was a stumbling block. The SS -
A The money would have to be paid to the financial president of the area. That becomes clear from the file note of Dr. Hohberg.
Q And that was a Reich agency, was it not?
A Yes, that was a Reich agency.
Q And the Waffen-SS was an agency of the Reich. Why was there any problem of an excessive price?
A Well, it is like this. These are internal regulations of the budget between the various financial administrative departments of the Reich. I did not know that at the time but the position was such that any seizure can only be done in favor of a Reich financial agency. This was, as it were, the transient exchequer through which every single seizure had to go, and the Reich Financial Ministry would then have had to transfer this to another agency, but this transfer by the Reich Ministry of Finance could only be done against proper compensation.
Q You know when you wrote the report on the 17th of June, 1940, that the property already had been seized?
A Yes, it says so.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q I only have one more question. Witness, did you know who Herr Lubkowitz was, was he a Jew or what?
A The Lobkowitz family are as far as I know an old Czech aristocratic family. I never heard that they were Jews or anything else.
DR. BERGOLD: Thank you very much.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Just a minute, you said you were only interested in the Bilin Mineral Wells.
A Yes. That is to say I said also that at first I made investigations about the whole of the property.
Q Why did you make an investigation of the whole of the property?
A If the tribunal please, this becomes clear from the contents of the report. As I remember it, it was like this. The property had been very heavily mortgaged, and that part of the property which was the most profitable one was the Bilin Mineral Well. Now, if the mortgage had been distributed, and that would have had to be done if the Bilin Well would have been taken out of the whole of the property, in some form or other, one would have had to deal with the whole of the property.
Q You mean in order to protect the Bilin Mineral Wells, which was covered by a blanket mortgage, the Reich might have had to take over the whole property?
A No, it is not quite like that. The mortgage was entered on the whole of the property. It was not broken down to the various individual properties. Unless the creditors would have been swindled out of their money, in some form or other the whole of the mortgage would have had to be divided among the other properties. And that was why one had to investigate the entire property.
Q You had no interest in the brewery nor the nursery, the tree nursery, nor the soft coal mine A September-A-IL-22-7-Hoxsie (Int.
Kurtz) nor the library of 300,000 volumes?
A When I made these investigations, your Honors I made a comprehensive study of the whole of the property. But the matters were thought over and it became clear that at the most the purchase of Bilin Well could be considered, but even that was,not done in the end, probably for financial reasons.
THE PRESIDENT: I have no further questions.
(Witness excused)
DR. GAWLIK: Dr. Gawlik for the defendants Drs.
Volk and Bobermin.
If the Tribunal please, I would be grateful if Dr. Volk could take once more the witness stand for rebuttal.
THE PRESIDENT: Herr Dr. von Stakelberg, did you find Meier?
DR. VON STAKELBERG: I am very sorry, but we have not. Miss Benford told me during the lunch recess that she could not get through on the telephone. I am very much afraid that Meier will not be available before the 15th of September.
THE PRESIDENT: If then.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Exactly.
LEO VOLK, recalled as a witness in rebuttal.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Witness, will you please give your full name?
A Leo Volk.
Q Witness, I remind you that you are still on oath. Will you please consider that when you give your testimony. Witness, you said before on the witness stand that you and Dr. Bobermin had not been full time SS officers, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Do you maintain your statement?
A Yes.
Q I put to you Document NO-1918, which is Exhibit 699, which has been submitted today by the prosecution in rebuttal. Does this document in what it says contradict your testimony?
A No.
Q Can you give us any explanation?
A This letter was drafted by me. When I was the legal expert with Staff W I received one day a letter from Pohl, which was a letter from DEST signed by Dr. Salpeter. To this letter there was attached an application to the Reich Ministry of Justice dated 1940 which had been signed by Pohl, drafted by Dr. Salpeter. In that letter Pohl for DEST G.m.b.H. made the request that it should be relieved of the court fees.
In the accompanying letter Pohl said "similar letter with similar reasons was to be drafted and addressed to the Reich Minister of Justice on behalf of the DAW." The "German Labor & Textile Works, and the German Experimental Station for food and Nutrition." I drew thereupon up again was the same letter as, giving the same reasons. On that day it was for the first time was faced with legal problem whether were SS Enterprises or Reich Enterprises, which is the reason why I gave this explanation in the letter.
I should add that in 1940 and 1941 the management, the office chiefs, W-1, W-IV, mad W-V, were still actual fulltime SS officers but that was altered by the end of 1940. As far as the question is concerned whether these were SS enterprises of Reich Enterprises I stated here on the witness stand my legal view of this point. But when the Federal Judge Phillips asked me his question I said that nobody know whether they were SS Enterprises or Reich Enterprises. But I know today and no German civilians and legal exports, may he be the best expert of the Public Admintration has, and who knows the Party regulations can say that they are SS enterprises: I know today that they are Reich Enterprises, and no German legal man could contradict me there; but this is hardly the point in this trial. It all depends on what one did.
Q Witness, you also said in your earlier testimony that you had never been a member of the Board of Supervisors of Osti. Is that correct?
A I was never on the Board of Osti but I did not say that on direct examination. I merely stated who was on the Board of Osti. I was never on the Board of Osti.
Q I shall hand to you now Document No-4535 which is Exhibit 671.
I am handing you the original document. Will you look at the letter of 3 August 1943 addressed to the local court? This is contained in Document Book XXVIII and as it is the first document, I assume the same applies to the English.
Q Wait a minute. Do you think by virtue of that letter that you can still maintain your statemant that you were never on the Board of Osti?
A Yes.
Q Can you give us an explanation of this?
A Yes
Q Bearing in mind this letter?
A The contains of this letter 3 August 1943 is incorrect. I can see that from the reference remark of the letter. It says; "Your communication of 30 June." The local court and the Registry Court sends usually a simple post card to all companies. On that card the partners must give their legal bodies. This is a matter of office routine which anybody can do. This is why this letter was dealt with by a single small employee who was neither a manager or partner nor on the board. On the basis of that post card the Registry goes and investigates whether any changes have been made and then he requests the partners or the management to carry out the changes, by giving an official certificate. The appointment of the Board of Directors can only be carried out by the meeting of the partners. That is contained in the partners agreement of Osti. I shall quote from paragraph 8: "The board consists of at least three members and will be appointed by the partners meeting."
DR. GAWLIK:
May I point out here, your Honors, that this is the some document -- namely, 4535, Exhibit 671.