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.
Only one page has been translated the whole of the document is extremely extensive.
Q Please continue.
A Partners were in this case Pohl and Loerner. My view is confirmed from the two documents which have been submitted, and which have been offered by the prosecution in Volume XIX, Exhibit 493, Document Book XIX. There it says; "The members of the Supervisory Board, Obergruppenfuehrer Kueger and Dr. Vonsamann-Frankeneck, are being terminated. As member of the Board Erich Schellin is being appointed." This is contained in Exhibit 493. This letter was written a fortnight before the other one.
My view is also being confirmed by Exhibit 491, also contained in Volume XIX. There the auditor Fischer, says about the duration of Osti: "By decision of the partners of 1943, were appointed following members of the Board; Pohl, Krueger, boomer, von Samann-Frankeneck. Obergruppenfuehrer Krueger has resigned on the 20th of May, 1943. Dr. von Samann-Frankeneck has left the Board and newly elect by has been the SS economist at Gracow Schellin.
As far as Exhibit 4671 is concerned, I never had any knowledge at all.
Q Do you know Schwaikowski who has signedit?
A I met Schwaikowski once.
Q What was Schwaikowski in Osti?
A He was a small clerk in Lublin. One day I heard that Osti had a branch in Berlin, but this were never located in our building.
Q Did you at any time work in the capacity as a member of the Board of Osti.
A Never at all.
Q Did you ever-
A I was never at a meeting of the Board.
Q. Now, talking about something else--
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Let me ask here -- you were the syndicus of Osti?
A. No.
Q. Well, look at the next page, after the letter of 3 August 1943 which was signed by Schwaikowski, now the next page, Document. 4652.
A. Yes.
Q. Does that document say that you were the syndicus?
A. Yes, if your Honor please, but this letter means something else.
Q. Le's take one thing at a time. The document says that you were the syndicus.
A. Yes, that was my designation
Q. Did you sign the document?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, were you the syndicus?
A. Yes. I was always a syndicus.
Q. Now, we are into that again. I remember. You were just a syndicus but you weren't the syndicus for Ostl.
A. No, I was not.
Q. I think I will drop the inquiry.
A. Mr. President, this letter I signed on behalf of the DWB G.M.b. H. as a receipt which one can see from paragraph 3 where it says, "The book and letter of the company will after the liquidation of the company be deposited with the DWB G.m.b.H., Berlin - Lichterfelde, unten den Eichen. The DWB will be represented by your procurists." I signed this letter as a procurist of DWB G.m.b.h.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Now, something elso. The prosecution have further submitted a "suggestion for promotion" concerning the defendant Dr. Bobermin where he is to be rewarded for special merits for the armament industry in connection with concentration camps. Do you know that "suggestion for promotion."
A. Yes.
Q. How do you know it?
A. In September 1943 -- or it might have been in October --I was to go downstairs to see Pohl, later in the evening, and the Adjutant was sitting there. The Adjutant told me that lots of promotions were given to the Office Group W. He was busy giving the reasons and putting them down on the froms. Thereupon he showed me the various recommendations. At far as I can remember, there was a recommedation for the Chief W-1 Mumenthey; W-II Bober in; W-II Hauptsturmfuehrer Rabeneck W-IV or V was not be promoted. There might have been somebody else. I read the seasons.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Just what are you rebutting that the prosecution presented in rebuttal which refers to this defendant?
DR. GAWLIK? I want to rebut the allegation by the prosecution concerning Dr. Bobermin. I am using this man as a witness for Dr. Bobermin. The prosecution had submitted a "recommendation for promotion" in which it become clear that Dr. Bobermin is said to have special ments with trgard to armament industry in commection with concentration camps and the incorrectness of the contents of this recommendation I wish to prove by Dr. Volk as a witness.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: I didn't realize at the monent that you were using this defendant as a witness for another defendant. I beg your pardon.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Please continue.
A. I read the recommendations and I daid to the Adjutant that the reasons given were wrong and we had a little argument. He said to one, after all, we were all busy on Armament, food enterprises or feeding the population and---
THE PRESIDENT: To that point ---get to the point. We are not interested in his argument or his conversation with the Adutant. What do you want to prove?
DR. GAWLIK: We are just coming to the point, Mr, President.
THE PRESIDENT: Always, forever and ever, just coming to the point.
A. The Adjutant told me that this was wrong but he had to send them on to Pohl in five minutes. I could not change it any-more. That is all I know about this myself.
Q. If I understood you correctly, the men who wrote down the recommendations told--
THE PRESIDENT: We heard him and you understood him correctly and so did we so don't repeat it.
Q As far as you know, were the reasons and recommendations for the promotions correct?
A. No.
Q. Can you give us any reasons for this?
A. Dr. Berbermin himself has testified that he did not work on armament problems.
DR. GAWLIK: I have no further questions.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness, the Exhibit 671 which is NO-4535, that you have in your hand will you tell the Tribunal what this entire exhibit is?
A. Exhibit 671 is a reply---
Q. Now just this letter by the entire folder which is in the districh court files in Berlin.
A. These are the registry files, a letter from the registry files.
Q. And these files are the official files which are contained where?
A. These are the official files of the district court where all letters go which are addressed to the district court in this matter, But that does not mean that the letters are correct, Mr. Prosecutor. Any body can write a letter to the district court. That is why the Registry Judge must investigate whether this letter has been signed by a partner. That is what a registry judge has to do, after all.
DR. FRITZCH (Counsel for defendant Raier): If the Tribunal please, my document books have just reached me. The only thing I am afraid of is that I shall contract the wrath of all these present if I want to finish them today. But of course, I would like to offer them in connection with each other.
I think we will go on through half past four in this respect.
THE PRESIDENT: Do we have then yet? Have we received them yet?
DR. FRITZCH: I think they must be available---yes. As a precautionary measure, I brought some along, too. I have got them here, If your Honors please.
THE PRESIDENT: We have them here? Is that correct?
DR. FRITZCH: Yes there are two books. If the Tribunal pleases, while Dr. Herman Karoli was being interrogated as a witness I submitted a sketch, a document Baie number "01." I am now submitting this draft as exhibit No. 1 and I would like to point out briefly that document was submitted by me to prove that the W Officers and the Staff W were not connected with each other in the ordinary channel of command between superior and subordinate office. They worked alongside each to under the Office Chief or his Deputy.
I shall then submit a document Bair "No.1" which will be Exhibit No. 2. This is an excerpt from what is known as the Polish property regulations. I believe I can confine myself to simply submitting it because I know that others of my colleages have submitted extracts from this regulation in order to prove that the WVHA did not have any authority to seize anything.
Document Baier No. 2 which I offer as Exhibit No.3 concerns the trans fer of members of the SS to private firms. That document has no direct relation to the changes in the indictment, to the policy of the indictment. It is supposed only to show indirectly that, as was the case with Baier, should could be ordered to join Economy Enterprises and work there without ceasing to be soldiers.
I will then submit a few other documents which are to show what Baier actually did until he was ordered to join the WVHA. I think that is of importance, because it shows his training and career from which one can draw conclusions of his actual activity with the WVHA.
First, I submit Baier Document No. 3, which is offered as Exhibit No. 4. The Tribunal will recall that the prosecution have submitted Exhibit 298 in Volume II, which was an affidavit by Philipp Grimm. Grimm says there about a training course in which he participated in Berlin and of which Baier was in charge. I quote, "Among other things, matters were taught there that the troops had to do in concentration camps." This somewhat ambiguous statement I have cleared up by the present affidavit. I would like to point out that Philipp Grimm says in his affidavit, "We were instructed regarding food, clothing, billeting, travel expenses, and accounting. Baier gave instructions regarding travel expense accounts. There were no lessons in concentration camp administration."
The next document is Baier No. 4 and it is offered as Exhibit NO. 5. The author of this affidavit was at first one of Baier's pupils. Later on he became a teacher. In this document he gives a very precise picture of the tasks and the actual instructions in that school. I would like to refer briefly to the contents and I would like to quote from paragraph 2 which is on page 1 of the document in English and German. I shall quote "This school was an establishment of the then Administrative Office of the SS of that time, later on called Hauptamt Haushalt und Bauten, Budget and Buildings, and finally SS WVHA, entrusted with the task of providing a background of theory and training to SS members for their use and employment in the administration of the Finance Office and Quartermaster Departments." If the Tribunal please, on page 2 of this document, there is a slight mistake in the translation.
A few more will emerge in later documents, and I would be grateful if I might point these out. They are only slight deviations from the original. I would therefore like to read these pages and the interpreter can correct them.
For that reason, I shall read from page 2 of this document from paragraph "c", "Finally men from the Waffen SS, who came directly from front line duty were at the school and then they were trained at a Junkerschule regarding service with a unit." The words, "at the school" were left out here.
From this affidavit I would like to quote to page 3, paragraph 6, the first paragraph. There it says, "The school had no connection whatsoever with the concentration Camp Dachau. It was situated within the area of the so-called SS Training Camp Dachau, which was in no way connected with the actual Concentration Camp."
The affiant also testifies on page 4 that the SS members working in this training camp, among whom there was the Defendant Baier, according to recent quotation, had no possibility to gain insight into concentration camp matters.
Dr. Hollstein then comments under paragraph 7 on Baier's character. May I just quote a brief passage from there? He says, "Hans Baier, former Oberfuehrer of the Waffen SS, has been known to me since the first course of instruction. At the time he held the rank of SS Hauptsturmfuehrer and came from the Finance Office at Wesermuende. His attitude has always been correct, his manner of life very plain. He was an indefatigable worker, not satisfied with just accomplishing the tasks entrusted to him in any odd way, but in addition he was always active to improve the school, and, above all, himself."
I shall now turn to Baier Document No. 5, which will become Exhibit No. 6. May I just have reference to this document as such without reading from it.
I should simply like to quote the last sentence of this document; "Dr. Ziegler, who himself was a teacher at the school says there: "I remember that Baier left the school very reluctantly, and tried again and again to retain this job to which he had become attached."
The Tribunal will recall that I have based my evidence on the fact that Baier as a soldier was ordered to join the WVHA and did not go there voluntarily with a private contract.
I shall now come to the next Document Baier No. 6, which will be Exhibit No. 7. Only in order to correct something, I wish to read the first sentence of the second paragraph. "On the 6th of February, 1941, I was transferred from active service in the West to the SS Training School for leaders of the Economic Administrative Service as instructir in the following subjects: accounting, food supplies, clothing, welfare and supplies; I was at school until the middle of December 1943." The English text erroneously says until August 1943.
This affiant again has reference to Baier's work at the Training School for leaders and gives details of what things were being taught there and as such he merely confirms the state ments of the witnesses which we have quoted before. I would like to read just a few sentences which deal with Baier's general conduct in life. I am now reading from page 16 of the document book, page 2 of the document, the second paragraph. This is what the affiant says, "During the period of my activity at the school Herr Hans Baier was its commander, up to August 1943. As commander he was responsible for conducting the course according to the directives of the Economic Administrative Main Office, personnel office. In addition, he taught commercial bookkeeping, taxation, and general financial matters. He took a vary conscientious and correct view of his duties. His private life was simple and his family life exemp lary.
His punctuality was proverbial. His energy in private study and his efficiency in fulfilling his task as commander should be specially emphasized. In addition, despite his age, he engaged in sport almost daily, and prohibited any excessive indulgence in smoking and drinking. In his contact with other authorities and individuals he merely observed the normal courtesies and took care of the interests of the school. As far as I know, Herr Baier did not touch on or discuss the Jewish problem in his lectures or addresses. The subkects of his lectures, especially his final addresses at the end of each training course, always concerned behavior, moral conduct, honesty and welfare of the troops."
As Document Baier No. 7, which is Exhibit no. 8, I shall submit an affidavit by Dr. Richard Karoli of Berlin-Dahlem. I would like to point out that this man is not the witness whom we had here on the witness stand, whose name was Dr. Hermann Karoli. It's his brother who was a member of the board of the largest German Auting Company and who at the request of the Ministry was asked by Pohl to give advice in auditing problems, when Dr. Hohberg was called up to the Wehrmacht. That affiant, if Your Honors please, knows the reasons which finally lead to Baier's being ordered to join the WVHA. These reasons are laid down in the affidavit and I would strongly recommend this document to the special attention of the Tribunal and merely would like to point to a few points which seem to me to be of special interest.
The affiant says on the first page on this document, at the end, "The question of the DWB'S audit obligations was brought forward early in 1943 in the Reich Ministry of Economy. The Undersecretary of State, at that time, in the Reich Ministry of Economy, Dr. Landfried conferred about the whole question with Fritz Kranefuss who on economic questions was currently in touch with the business manager of the DWB, Pohl.