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.
Dr. Landfried and Kranefuss who were both members of the Board of Treuarbeit, agreed to clarify the whole question by bringing in the Reich's own Treuarbeit."
The witness then talks about the first conference with Pohl and says in the about middle of page 2 of this document, "Pohl stressed in the discussion that the question must be cleared up whether the DWB and the Koncern companies were to be regarded as public enterprises, Reich enterprises, or as NSDAP enterprises or as private enterprises. I pointed out in the discussion that the question could only be decided on the basis of a thorough audit of the DWB, as a result of which ownership of DWB shares would be established in particular, and also the sources of capital for the DWB and the Konzern companies....Pohl then, in the further conversations Pohl and Kranefuss sketched the DWB Konzern for me."
From there the witness goes on to say that he expressed his misgivings for this idea that he had suggested and that it would be a good idea in order to clear up the whole question to have internal auditing operations.
He then goes on to describe that one morning the defendant Baier came to see him and described himself as the man who was to set up this internal auditing and that he was to discuss with him all questions of interest for this internal auditing.
The affiant on page 7 of this document then speaks about Baier's personality, and he says in the first paragraph -
THE PRESIDENT: Let us read it ourselves, Dr. Fritsch. We can read about his personality.
DR. FRITSCH: If the court plase, I shall offer Document No. 8 as Exhibit No. 9, which is an affidavity by Arthur Haleck, and I would like to point out briefly that this man Haleck is a member of the Court of Auditors of the German Reich, who discussed with Defendant Baier the various financial questions. Baier at that tim arranged for the finances of the Reich and the DWB be kept separate. The Tribunal will recall that the prosecution in some cases has alleged that these financial agencies of the WVHA had attempted to save this money for the SS Enterprises. I believe that here I have proved that the contrary applies.
I shall then submit Baier Document No. 9, which will become Exhibit No. 10. This is an affidavit by Herma Brachvogel, who was once a bookkeeper with the DWB and she says in this affidavit that Baier was essentially busy on auditing problems and that had been his hobby horse.
The next document which will be Haier No. 10 and I shall mark it as Exhibit No. 11, is an affidavit by Otto Barnewald. I would like to draw the Tribunal's attention to paragraph 6 of this affidavit, which I have carried out by the American interrogating officer Dachau. The witness Dr. Kogan had stated here that the so-called inmates' money, that is to say, those amounts which were sent to thr inmates by relatives, were really passed on to the WVHA and spent by the WVHA. In this affidavit, the witness states, and I shall quote, at the bottom of the pare, "During my activity as leader of the concentration camp administration, such a case has not come to my knowledge.
It was strictly forbidden to pay the money, belonging to the inmates, to others than the inmates themselves."
The affidavit also confirms that Staff W at no time was concerned with the accounting of concentration camps money, as far as the WVHA was concerned. The auditing was taken care of by Office A-IV.
I shall then submit Baier Document No. 11, which will become Exhibit No. 2, which is an affidavit by Kurt Lindow. This affiant was a specialist in the RSHA for the Department for Communists. He says himself in his affidavit that he was in a very good position to see everything about the competence as far as committing somebody to or releasing somebody from a concentration camp. From, this document I would like to point out that the witness states that the question of release and the committing to concentration camps was entirely a matter of the RSHA and that the WVHA had nothing to do with these things. The affiant also confirms in this affidavit that it was extremely difficult to get into a concentration camp for anybody and he says that he himself, although he was working in that particular department, only managed to go once and inspect the Oranienburg concentration camp.
The affiant also states in his affidavit, and I shall quote from page 3, "In any case, we could not see anything unworthy of human dignity." And he was talking about a report of Oranienburgs concentration in 1938 or the beginning of 1939. I have submitted this affidavit, because also Defendant Baier, as a witness, confirmed that he had seen a concentration camp and that is experiences were identical with the ones of this affiant here.
As Baier Document Do. 12, I am submitting as Exhibit 13, an affidavit by Wolfram Sievers. I would like to point out here that the prosecution have offered a document and it would seem that they wanted to prove that Staff W and in particular that the Defendant Baier, were connected with medical experiments and the production of the Polygal drug. In this statement the prosecution was told that the Herman Medical Supply, G.m.b.H., which was part of Staff W had produced that drug. The witness Sievers, who has given me this affidavit which I am now submitting was the man responsible for the exploitation of this drug. He confirms here that it was not the German Medical Supply G.M.b.H., that produced that drug, but some other company.
As Document No. 13 and Exhibit No. 14, I shall submit an affidavit by Berta S chiroczin. This is a stateless individual who for many years worked with Baiers family in Dachau, and here she tells us all about her own observations concerning the concentration camp inmates and so forth. I would like to have references to the contents of this document and ask the court to excuse me from reading the five pages of this document.
I shall now come to Document Baier No. 14, which is Exhibit No. 15. That document has been signed by Frau Friedil Haug. Frau Haug lived near Baier's home in Dachau-
THE PRESIDENT: This is a character affidavit, Dr. Fritsch.
DR. FRITSCH: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: We'll read it.
DR. FRITSCH: Then as Document Baier No. 15, I shall offer Exhibit No. 13; which is an affidavit by Hinrich Albers of Bremerhaven who is well acquainted with Baier's former activity with the Finance Offices. This document and the Baier Document No. 16, which I shall offer as Baier Exhibit No. 17, both deal with the question of Baier's work with the Finance Offices, his training and the fact that on the whole he was working on auditing and taxation problems.
The next document is Baier No. 18, which I am offering as Exhibit No. 19. If the Tribunal please, here again we have a character affidavit, but may I in this case ask to point particulary to this document This document and the following one, which is Baier No. 19 and Exhibit No. 20 -- they are two affidavits which seem to me to be particularly vital. Defendant Baier on the witness stand said on his own that although he did so reluctantly but for reasons of certain influences he employed three gardeners in his gardens who came from a concentration camp. I have succeeded in tracking down two of these three. They volunteered on their own when they heard about this trial. The third inmate unfortunately is dead.
Now, in the case of Exhibits 19 and 20, we are concerned with two Polish Catholic priests. Both of the say unanimously that they owe it only to Baier that they survived the concentration camp. They also saw that they did not tell Baier anything about their own difficulties at the time. 7460 He simply took care of them for reasons of general humanity; protected them in every sense of the word; and, as any decent human being would do, he treated them.
From exhibit Number 20 of Jan Piechowiak I should like to read one passage. After Peichowiak had stated that from 2 May 1940 until 29 April 1945 be was an inmate of Dachau concentration camp; he says that from February 1942 until April 1945 he was attached as a gardener to the labor detachment of the SS School for Administrative Leaders. He also says that during this period of time, he was subordinated to Baier who was the commander of the school.
He continues as follows: "During this time of three years and two months of my being there, Herr Baier, and his whole family have always treated me and my fellow-workers very humanely and very considerably. Baier had always a good word for us and was always correct and polite. He knew that I was a Polish Catholic priest, but he nevertheless took stops to get me out of the camp." Then he continues, "If I survived the camp with some of my health still intact, I owe this above all to Herr Baierand his family."
I shall now come to Document Book Number II. The first document Baier Number 20, which is Exhibit Number 21, is a supplementary affidavit to the affidavit which I have just quoted in extract. I should recommend the contents of this affidavit to the Court's attention. It simply gives more details of what the affiant has been speaking of before. In the third paragraph on the first page there is a slight mistake in the translation. May I read the first sentence:
"Referring to my statement in the affidavit of 21 March 1947, namely, that during the camp famine we received some food from the Baier family, I should add that the term 'camp famine' was coined by myself". Could I draw the Tribunal's attention to the fact that he has spoken of "some food." Should the word "some" not be stricken out?
THE PRESIDENT: What is the opinion of the interpreter?
INTERPRETER KURTZ: I don't personally think so, Your Honor. He speaks of certain items of food. One could say "certain items of food."
DR. FRITSCH: If Your Honors please, I am not a linguist, but I was merely struck by the phrase, and I thought that this word "some" would belittle this. It's not a very important point. I simply thought I should draw your attention to it.
THE PRESIDENT: Food is food, Dr. Haensel, I thought you might have the answer in your book.
DR. FRITSCH: On Page 2 of this affidavit there I really think is a mistake in he translation. To read from the last paragraph: "In conclusion I must emphasize again that the attitude of Herr Baier and his whole family towards us was in every respect blamelessly humane. Therefore, I can say without any modification that Herr Baier's attitude towards the prisoners was not only above reproach but also I can say that he behaved towards them all the time in a helpful way. As it may be seen in my own case." The mistake has already been corrected.
As Baier Document Number 21 I offer as Exhibit 22 an affidavit by Caroline Carstens. I should like to draw attention to what I have said before about the inmates who worked for Baier. I stated that one of them had already died but that during his illness he told his nurse details of his life in the concentration camp. This nurse confirms the fact here that he also described Baier as the man who helped him over the hard time in the concentration camp.
THE PRESIDENT: Third degree hearsay--the dead man told the nurse and the nurse tells the Court what the dead man thought about Baier.
DR. FRITSCH: If the Tribunal please, I simply wanted to track down the third one; but as he is dead the nurse had to suffice.
THE PRESIDENT: May he rest in peace!
DR. FRITSCH: Then there is Baier Document Number 22, which will become Exhibit Number 3. This is an affidavit by Dr. Kurt Hoepfner, who was an auditor with Staff W. May I recommend the contents of this document to the attention of the Court as I assume that the Court will read it itself? The last document, if Your Honors please, is Baier Document Number 23 in Document Book II, and I offer this as Exhibit Number 24. This is an affidavit of a woman, which does not intend to give a picture of Baier's character; but by means of her testimony I want to prove the following. In this Court we have frequently heard of resistance and opposition to orders and so on. This lady happened to come across Baier. To give you her life history in five sentences, it goes like this. Her husband was a captain with the police in Holland. After the firth of her fifth child, the husband, referring to an order which existed, asked to be transferred back home. This was interpreted as a piece of cowardice. He was demoted and committed to a concentration camp. This has something to do with Baier himself as he attempted at the time to help this woman. He was, however, unsuccessful. This brings me to the end of my offer of documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there other documents? Are you ready, Dr. Haensel, to present documents? What about documents, exhibits? Are there any more that are ready? Do you have some documents to offer, Dr. Haensel?
DR. HAENSEL: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you, Dr. Von Stein?
DR. VON STEIN: Yes.
THE RESIDENT: We will take five minutes' recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for five minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have Book Number I?
DR. VON STEIN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Don't read the document unless it's necessary.
DR. VON STEIN: Very well, Your Honor. With the Document Eirenschmalz Number 1, which will be Exhibit Number 1, I am submitting as an affidavit of Heinrich Krone. This is a rebuttal affidavit which was taken down in the presence of a representative of the prosecution. In Document NO-2197, which was Exhibit Number 53, Krone stated that Eirenschmalz was always informed about everything the SS garrison administrations did; in particular he was informed when gas chambers and crematoria did not function; and he would then take the proper measures. In his new affidavit Krone has now refuted these statements and made corrections, that only the local building agencies concerned knew about these repairs but not Office C/VI.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have the exhibit number of this prior affidavit, the number of the first affidavit?
DR. VON STEIN: Number 53. He has also stated that from his own experience he had no knowledge of repair work done in crematoria and gas chambers. He also states that the Buchenwald crematorium was built in the course of 1940. From 1934 until 1942 Krone worked in Esterwegen, Sachsenhausen, and Buchenwald concentration camps. He was appointed by the former Gruppenfuehrer Eicke. In 1937 and 1938 Eicke gave the order that the electric shelter should be constructed in Buchenwald. The SS administrative office was, throughout the period of his activity, never important.
Document Number 2, which will be Exhibit Number 2, is also a rebuttal affidavit by Hans Eichele. This affiant said in his earlier affidavit that the order to build the crematorium in Dachau was issued by the Main Office Budget and Building in 1940, and he then mentioned Eirenschmalz's name. In his new affidavit Eichele has cleared up this mistake because he was under the impression that at that time Eirenschmalz was still with the Office Budget and Building.
But now he states that the farmer Sturmbannfuehrer Heidelberg was the first office chief at that time and not Eirenschmalz. As a matter of fact, Eichele could not find out who really gave the order to build the crematorium. Eichele was the man in charge of the garrison administration of Dachau in 1940. He stated that that garrison administration was responsible for the carrying out of repair work, for which they had their own workshops and supplied the material. All repair work was done without a special permission being necessary, and the bill was passed on to A/IV and not C/VI.