The declaration made by Rammler at his interrogation that he had no insight into the official tasks of the offices and that the respective statements made by him in the affidavit of January 24, 1947, Document Number 1581, Prosecution Exhibit Number 136, were based on presumptions corresponds to the real facts but was met with open doubt by the Court.
In judging the question of criminal responsibility, especially the question of how much knowledge of certain happenings the individual defendants possessed and what possibilities of influencing the course of events were available to them, the special conditions in Germany during the war, especially during the last year of the war, have to be taken into consideration. Under no circumstances can one proceed from conditions which were not directly touched by the events of war or only to a small degree. I think in this connection particularly of the destruction of the means of traffic and communication, increasing with the length of the war, and the general deterioration of living conditions in all Germany caused by this.
Finally we have to be careful not to draw from our knowledge gained in the post-war period conclusions for equal possibilities of knowledge at the time during which the crimes under indictment were committed. It cannot be omitted to emphasize in this connection very strongly the extremely severe methods of the men in power in Germany for keeping things secret. Prosecutor and Court come from a world with all possibilities of forming free opinions, and it seems to me, in spite of all the good intentions on the part of these participants in this trial, nearly impossible that they could form a really true picture of the very limited possibilities for forming a free opinion and free will in a state governed absolutely in an authoritative and totalitarian way.
I am now coming to the individual counts of the indictment.
Regarding Count I of the indictment, no further statements are necessary in view of the decision of the Court of 10 July ****. **** ******* according to Counts II and III of the indictment are said to have been committed by the defendant Karl Sommer in as far as can be recognizable from the indictment and the evidence presented by the prosecution in that he (1) as one of the most important leaders of the SS-WVHA, namely, as Sturmbannfuehrer of the Waffen-SS and Deputy Chief of the Office D-II by his work in this office participated in the committing of the said crimes;(2) himself committed two murders in the concentration camp Auschwitz.
The prosecution asserts that all defendants, and therefore also the defendant Sommer, were guilty of all crimes put under evidence. In the following arguments, however, reference is made to the crimes with which the defendants are charged individually, only in as far as the defendant Sommer is connected with them in a recognizable manner. As far as such a connection is not visible, a discussion will not be made of them. However, any connection of the defendant Sommer with them is expressly contested.
THE PRESIDENT: We are obliged to recess now, and you are just taking up a new subject. We'll reconvene at 1:15.
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal II will be in recess until 1315 hours.
(A recess was taken.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1315 hours, 18 September 1947)
THE MARCHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: I. the attorneys for Baier and for Bobermin here? Baier and Bobermin, are they here; who represents them? Dr. Gawlik, does he represent them both?
DR. SEIDL: The defendant Baier is represented here by the defense counsel Fritsche, and the defendant Bobermin is represented by Dr. Gawlik.
THE PRESIDENT: The Translation Department has not received their closing arguments as yet. They have not even filed it with the Information Center of the Defense. I don't know when they expect to argue.
DR. BELZER: Your Honor, may it please the Tribunal. I shall continue in the presentation of my final defense speech for the defendant Sommer. The development of the position of Inspectorate of Concentration Camps and the integration of Office Group-D into the WVHA, as well as the legal foundation and general practice for execution of labor allocation of concentration camp inmates had been detailed in the discussion on the plea for the defendant Pohl. I expressly refer to these statements in order to avoid any repetition.
Since March 1942 the defendant Pohl was Plenipotentiary General for labor allocation of the concentration camp inmates. The instrument for the management and the steering of this labor allocation was Office Group-D II, labor allocation of inmates, newly created March 1942, and subsequently taken over by Obersturmbannfuehrer and later Standartenfuehrer Gerhard Maurer, within the Office Group-D. That was the Inspectorate of the concentration camp through creation of this office D-II, within the frame of the organization of Office Group-D nothing was changed regarding the competency and field of activity of the already previously existing Offices of the Group-D. The office of Group-D II could as well have been inserted somewhere else without affecting the organizational structure of the Office Group-D in any way.
Under the supervision of the Office Group-D were the concentration camps in the territory of the Greater German Reich, and the concentration camp Hertogenbosch in the Netherlands. Consequently, the working field of the Office Group-D II also extended that far. With the other concentration camps, in the General Government of Poland, and in the socalled East Countries, the Office Group-D II had only purely informatory connections regarding the labor allocation. The Office D-II was in itself divided into three branches with three tasks: Branch D-II-1, Prisoner allocation; Branch D-II-2, Education of prisoners, and, Branch D-II-3, Accounting and statistics. The written official order for the activity of the Office D-II never existed, no regulations existed, as the defendant Sommer, has in detail described the range of tasks of the Office D-II. I refer to this statement in the English transcript.
Accordingly, the Office DII had to deal exclusively with questions, which related to the labor allocation of the inmates of the so-called SS-Economic Enterprises, SS-Building Offices, and the private enterprises. The Office D II was not competent for all other uses of concentration-camp inmates, as, for example, the allocation of prisoners for the execution of medical experiments either as human guinea pigs or as nurses. The Office D II had also nothing to do with the allocation of inmates for the execution of police measures, for example, rendering harmless of bombs, removing of bombs and other air-defense measures after air-attacks on German cities.
The Office D II had absolutely nothing to do with all questions relating to the administration camps, clothing and feeding of the inmates, or in particular their arrest and dismissal. The Office D II also was not competent in any way for the allocation of guards. Insofar as the Defendant Sommer, as stated in the Document NO-3794, Exhibit No. 584, presented by the Prosecution in Document Book XXXIV, was connected with the allocation of guards for prison camps, it has been made clear without any doubt by the statement of the Witness Volk, that Sommer was only doing a favor when he transmitted Volk's wishes to the competent agency.
The decision regarding the approval of refusal of requests of persons making requirements concerning the allocation of concentration camp inmates, rested with the Chief of the Main Office Phl, who, on an average of once a week, received reports from Gluecks and Maurer, and had presented to himself the requests pre-processed by the Office D II. The Chief of Office Maurer had the authority to approve only the smallest labor commands within a limited range of time. Pohl, however, also had to be informed even in the event of such approvals.
I am coming now to the position and activity of the Defendant concerning the office D II. In March 1941 the Defendant Sommer entered the employ of DEST G.m.b.H. in Berlin as a civilian employee. There he occupied an entirely subordinate position in the department for labor allocation. In May 1942 the then Obersturmbannfuehrer Maurer got him a job with the newly-created Office D II. Also at this time, Sommer was first employed as a civilian employee. About in June 1942 Maurer told him that his employment as civilian employee was no longer possible for official reasons, and that he had therefore caused the drafting of Sommer to the Waffen-SS.
Sommer, according to his rank of a Lieutenant of the Reserve, which he had occupied with the German Army, was drafted into the Waffen-SS as Obersturmbannfuehrer of the Reserve. Effective 20 April 1944 Sommer was promoted to Hauptsturmfuehrer of the Reserve. This was remained the highest rank attained by Sommer in the Waffen-SS. Sommer never was a Sturmbannfuehrer.
In the Office D II, the Defendant Sommer was Referent of the sphere of activity D-II-1, which was inmate allocation. As witness in his own case, the defendant has given a clear and detailed description of his sphere of activity and his actions. According to this, Sommer's activity was limited to dealing with actual procedures in a purely administrative manner, according to the instructions of the Chief of Office Maurer. Sommer himself did hot have any authority to decide or direct. Sommer was only entitled to sign when documents were involved which dealt with purely administrative matters. Sommer undertook official journeys only very rarely, and always only in execution of a clearly outlined orders of the Chief of Office.
At the end of 1943, the Chief of Office Maurer appointed the Defendant Sommer, as the senior SS Officer in the Office D II, to be his deputy. This deputizing included the duty of Sommer to take care of the internal office activities of the Office D II in the absence of Maurer, and to give information upon inquiries.
Under no circumstances did this deputizing of the Chief of Office include the right and the duty to make decisions or give directions in essential matters.
After Sommers promotion in April 1944, Maurer told him that now he could call himself "Main Department Chief." Sommer's sphere of activities was, however, not changed at all by this. Also with this title, no authority whatsoever to decide or give directions was connected with it.
The Prosecution asserted in view of Sommer's appointment in 1943 as "deputy" for Maurer, that Sommer had been "Deputy Chief of Office" and therefore also responsible for the decisions made in the Office D II regarding to the labor allocation of the concentration-camp inmates. It is therefore necessary to define here in detail the position with regard to this question.
First of all, it has to be stated that the Prosecution was not able to prove the assertion that Sommer was Deputy of Office, with any documents originating during the existence of the office D II or by a statement of a witness. The table or organization of the WVHA, confirmed as being correct by Pohl, has been submitted by the Prosecution. The remark in the column "Office D II Deputy," Sturmbannfuehrer Sommer", escaped Pohl's attention when examining this chart. When being interrogated on 22 May 1947, he declared the entry to be false, and gave a detailed explanation for it. Also Pohl's affidavit of 1 April 1947 is not apt to support the assertion of the Prosecution, as results from Pohl's statement of the 27th and 28th of May, 1947. Nor can the Prosecution refer to his own statements of the Defendant Sommer. During Sommer's cross-examination by the Prosecution, Sommer's statement from the examination record was presented of 4 October 1946. According, to that, Sommer declared on that date, "In 1943 I was appointed by Maurer as his deputy with the remark that in each office a deputy for the chief of Office, who is informed about all matters concerning his sphere of activities, has to be appointed."
As a witness in his own case, Sommer has, on 30 June 1947, also mentioned the occasion which caused his appointment as deputy of Maurer. Maurer has, in Number 26 of his affidavit of 23 May 1947, referred to this question as follows: "Sommer's last service rank was Hauptsturmfuehrer. Sommer cannot be called deputy Chief of Office simply for the reason that he did not have any right to make decisions. In my opinion also the word "Deputy" goes too far. Sommer was my representative insofar as in my absence he accepted telephone calls for the Office D II, wishes and proposals regarding the allocation of inmates. After my return Sommer had to report to me about this. In case the decision could not be delayed until my return, Sommer had to get the decision of the Chief of the Office Group Gluecks. I cannot remember that Sommer once himself signed a document which originated in the Office D II. However, if it should have happened then this can only have been a very unimportant matter, but in no case questions of labor allocations were dealt with.
The table of organization of the WVHA presented to me and confirmed as correct by Pohl on 18 March 1947 is incorrect in the column Office D II, where it reads:
"Deputy, Sturmbannfuehrer Sommer." Sommer was not Sturmbannfuehrer. Regarding the right to represent, I refer to my above statement for all counts.
In January 1945, Maurer was assigned to the front troops as group administrative officer. This use of Maurer at the front was intended only for a short time. For the duration of Maurer's absence, the Standartenfuehrer Moser, who was attached to Pohl's staff, was ordered to deputize for Maurer as Chief of the Office D II. If Sommer had been Deputy Chief of the Office D II, Moser's commission would not have been necessary at all.
But this action in particular proves that Sommer really was not Deputy Chief of Office. The Standartenfuehrer Moser himself declares in connection with this in his affidavit of 13 August 1947, and I quote. This is Sommer's Exhibit No. 40. "In continuation of my former activity effective the 15th of January 1945. I substituted for the Chief of Office D II, SSStandartenfuehrer Maurer, for the duration of his assignment at the front.
"In the Office D II, SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Sommer was employed as co-worker. I have no knowledge of a promotion of Sommer to Sturmbannfuehrer. Sommer was not Deputy Chief of Office D II. He had at most the position of an office manager and was responsible for the internal office activates. In factual matters Sommer did not have an authority to make decisions. It is quite possible that Sommer, in one or the other case, signed a paper himself. But in these cases most certainly only questions exclusively concerned with the administration and the execution of actions were involved. If Sommer would have been Deputy Chief of Office, I would not have to take over the deputizing of Maurer which, as a matter of fact, was intended only for a few weeks. Upon my repeated remonstrances with Pohl to release me from deputizing for Maurer, I was always told, that this was not possible because Maurer, at present, could not be spared at the front." End of the quotation.
Albert Mueller, a clerk of the Defendant Sommer from July 1944 to the beginning of January 1945, testifies in the affidavit of 15 May 1947, presented by me as Document Sommer No. A/2, Exhibit No. 3, that Sommer did not make any decisions regarding questions of labor allocation independently.
The former SS-Obersturmfuehrer Philipp Grimm belonged to the Office D II from 1 September 1943 to 31 May 1944. He testifies in an affidavit of 10 May 1947, and I quote:
"During my activities in the WVHA, I met Karl Sommer daily. Regarding the activity of Sommer I can testify that he himself never signed orders regarding the mobilization of new groups of inmates. If such given in the absence of the Chief of Office Maurer, he had them signed by Gluecks. He also presented transport orders to Gluecks for the allocation of inmates. I cannot say whether he otherwise made decisions while representing Maurer. I also don't know whether he was appointed Deputy Chief of Office of D II. His position correspond to the one of an office manager." In the translation of this affidavit, the word "Buerochef" has been given as "office head." It would be more correct to translate it with "head clerk."
By presenting a number of persons, outside of the case, who had to deal with the office D II, I have proved beyond any doubt, that the defendant Sommer during these negotiations always presented the fact, that he did not have any right to make decisions and that he had to present the matter to the Chief of Office Maurer. This refers to the affidavits of Ernst Schultz, Helmuth Kiener, Heinz Schwarz, Karl Hain, Heinrich Werner Courthe, Herbert Siggelkow, Walter Schieber, Walter Duerrfeld and Martin Moebius. As to the details I refer to the contents of these affidavits. As a particular significant point which proves that the service position of Sommer has been entrusted with taking the mail to his office chief Maurer to the SS Recreation Center Sudelfeld in Upeer Bavaria, where Maurer spent a fortnight's holiday. This fact is simply not compatible with the position of a "Deputy Office Chief." Likewise the defendant Sommer never took part in the periodically recurring meetings of the Commandants, nor did he attend the lectures held once a week by the Chief of the Office Group Gluecks, and the Office Maurer in Pohl's office. The affidavit Pister submitted by the Prosecution seems to contain a divergent statement.
This was the reason why I submitted to the Tribunal a further affidavit of Pister dated 10 May 1947. In this affidavit Pister states he is unable to assert for certain to have seen Sommer at the meetings of the Commandants.
Last, but not least, there is another argument against the assumption that Sommer had been Deputy Office Chief, namely, the fact that it was generally not a habit with the Economic and Administrative Main Office to appoint Deputy Office Chiefs and that this did not happen with Sommer either, if not for other reasons, because he was of a much too inferior rank of officer.
Sommer would have had to be at least Sturmbannfuehrer, that is, a staff officer, for an appointment of a Deputy Office Chief to become possible at all. To sum up, what has resulted from all the evidence taken, it can be said that the Defendant Sommer was only Referent in the Office D-II, but never Deputy Office Chief. At most, he could have been a head clerk. In the opinion of a man who had observed him for many years, he was a typical receptionist. It is out of the question that Sommer was one of the most important leaders of the Economic and Administrative Main Office. If Maurer had been arrested half a year before, Sommer certainly would not be sitting in the dock.
Apart from his activity as referent in the sphere of D-II/1, Sommer was in 1943 charged by Maurer with the supervision of the watchmakers shop in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. In his interrogation by this Court, Sommer said on 30 June 1947, that he exercised this supervision between the Spring of 1943 and the spring of 1944. On cross examination on 2 July 1947, a passage of the record of his interrogation on the 4th of October, 1946 was read to him. At that time Sommer had said and I quote, "I was in charge of that watch repair business until the end of 1943. Later on it was given to another person." That this is correct becomes evident from Document No. 4468, Exhibit No. 685, I shall refer to this document later on. Sommer's supervision of that watchmaker's shop comprised the duty to see that the huts belonging to that shop were not overcrowded and that shops and huts were kept in a clean condition. Beyond that he had to forward the wishes and requests by the manager of the shop. Simultaneously with the supervision of the watchmaker's shop in the Sachsenhausen concentration Camp, Sommer took over the supervision of a stock of watches stored in the ground floor of the office premises of Amtsgruppe D. The watches which were stored there had come from the Action Reinhardt.
How those watches were received in the camp and how they were given out to the watchmaker's shop in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp, was told by the defendant Sommer as a witness. As to the details, I refer to this testimony. In Document Book XXVIII the prosecution submitted as Document No. 4468, Exhibit No. 685, a letter from the Office D-II to the administration of the Auschwitz concentration camp. This letter refers to a preceding letter of 6 December 1943. The letter bears the date of 24 January 1944. However it had been dealt with as shown by the File No. D/II/I/14/16 Bie/rue, not by Sommer but by Sommer's successor, namely, the SS-Unterscharfuehrer Riemann, to whom Sommer had, at that time, handed over the entire stock. Sommer himself never saw that letter. At the time when that letter was written Sommer was on vacation in the Berghaus Sudelfeld. Therefore, it is not proved by this document that the statements of Sommer about his activities and his knowledge in connection with the stock of watches and the Reinhardt Action were incorrect. According to the letter of Office D-II a receipt was sent for the administration of Auschwitz camp regarding a consignment received on 11 October 1943 from the Auschwitz camp. The letter closes with the remark that no further receipts could be written out about consignments received previously from the Auschwitz concentration camp, since in view of the abundance of objects received from all directions at that time it had been impossible to have the objects counted at once. There follows a request to have the objects counted carefully in the future, since discrepancies to such a great extent should not occur. The whole contents of the letter cannot be considered as incompatible with Sommer's statements, the more so since Sommer himself admits that at the time he had the supervision of the watches a consignment arrived from Lublin or Auschwitz.
The abundance of goods received that the letter mentions took place at a time when Sommer had not yet the supervision of the stock of watches. Furthermore, Sommer had nothing to do with the whole camp correspondence. The document is unambiguous evidence for the fact that at Sommer's time no correspondence was carried on in that matter. Bieman Sommer's successor in the supervision of the stock of watches, had, as a matter of fact, no idea about what file number ought to be given to the letter, since there were no preceding letters. He chose the number 14/16. According to the file schedule of Office D-II of 1 October 1942, which is shown in Document No. 597, Exhibit 360 of the Prosecution, the file number 14/16 was destined for new files concerning the employment of prisoners for armament purposes in the armament plants. According to the files schedule drawn up by the Defendant Sommer, the file number 14/16 was used for the correspondence with the Sachsenhausen concentration camps about the employment of inmates. This in itself proves that Sommer who was also thoroughly conversant with the handling of files, had certainly nothing to do with that document, Document No. 4468, Prosecution Exhibit 685 and that this document can in no way affect the reliability of Sommer's statements in that matter It is hardly possible to express one's opinion on this document without the prosecution submitting the letter of Office D-IV, which is referred to in the answer of Office D-II.
In order to make the picture of the Defendant Sommer's activities complete, four special cases will now have to be discussed.
1. In its opening speech, the prosecution contended that Sommer in the autumn of 1944 had himself gone to Buchenwald in order to select the inmates for the construction project S-111 at Ohrdruf. The prosecution has not been able to produce the least vestige of a proof for the correctness of that contention. By the statements of Sommer and the affidavits of Maurer of 22 May 1947, and Pister of 10 May 1947, as well as Albert Schwartz of the 1-th of May, 1947, it is quite to the contrary, proved that Sommer did not do that and that this selection of the prisoners did not belong to the province of Office D-II, or of Sommer, for that matter.
2. In the course of his interrogation as a witness in his own behalf, the Defendant Sommer has told how in May or June 1944 he learned from Amtsgruppenchef Gluecks about the intended extermination of Hungarian Jews at Auschwitz. Sommer was meant, according to Gluecks' plans, to be in charge of registering the figures contained in the daily reports on the extermination of the Jews. Under the pretext to be overburdened with work, Sommer managed to get the Amtsgruppenchef to charge another person with this job. Thus, Sommer was in no way actively engaged in this matter. It will be necessary to deal later on in a different context with the way the Defendant Sommer reacted upon what the Amtsgruppenchef told him.
3. In Document Book XXX, the prosecution submitted Document No-4181, Exhibit No. 710, statements of claims of the Lublin concentration camp dated 31 July 1944 concerning the employment of prisoners in the DAW plant Blizyn for the period 1 to 25 July 1944 and concerning the employment of prisoners in the plant Radom for the period 1 to 30 September 1944. Those statements of claims show in the right hand corner the date; Radom, 31 July 1944, respective Blizyn, 23 October 1944 and at the bottom on the right hand side the remark, "Materially correct and approved." The Head of Office D-II by, signed Sommer, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer and Hauptabteilungsleiter." On the lower left side of the requisition forms there is the handwritten notation, "received 11 January 1945," and the initial of an official clerk of D-II/3 Stanfenbiel.
On the tack of the requisition forms there was a record for that month of the number inmates dismissed. These entries were signed by the camp leaders of the work camps Radom or Blizyn, which ever pertained.
It was possible to tell, from the photostatic copies, that the original text of the requisitions forms is crossed out and covered over "between the line showing the total of prisoner payments and the signature.
Any accompanying note, which might explain this procedure in detail is lacking.
About this document, I would like to point out in particular, that in January 1945 there was no concentration camp Lublin or work camp Radom or work camp Blizyn. These camps had long since been evacuated. Obviously this is a case where duplicates were produced, because the originals were somehow lost. How it happened that Office D-II in particular made these duplicates cannot be determined without the accompanying letter, which must certainly exist. At any rate, it is established that ordinarily Office D-II had nothing to do with the requisition forms for prisoner payment. This is also proved by the original imprint on the form reading. "The Chief of the Administration," which was crossed out. In reality, this person was the competent authority for furnishing duplicates. This document, which has been taken out of context, cannot be used to prove, concerning a connection between Office D-II, and the concentration camp Lublin, anything more than the defendant Sommer has already stated in direct examination about the use of prisoners as workers.
It is also not fitting to prove anything in regard to the official position of the defendant Sommer in Office D-II that cannot be reconciled with the statements of Sommer, Maurer or Moser. In this connection it must be said that these requisition forms were made out in the middle of January, 1945, at which time there was a change in chiefs of Office D-II and Sommer had perhaps signed because there was no office chief present. At any rate, confirming the essential accuracy of these duplicates is no more than pure office routine and does not warrant the conclusion that Sommer had here acted as "Deputy Office Chief."
4. I am obliged to challenge the statements made by Wolfgang Sanner in an affidavit, Document NO-3104, Prosecution Exhibit 621, Document Book XXVI and the statement he made during cross-examination on 20 August 1947.
In paragraph 44 of this affidavit Sanner stated that in 1944 and 1945 he saw letters that were signed I.V. Karl Sommer. These letters were supposed to be contain the names of prisoners for whom Sommer had ordered special treatment. In the next paragraph of the affidavit Sanner told about the two forms of special treatment in the concentration camp Mauthausen.
In the cross-examination, Sanner had to admit that he had actually not seen any letters in which Sommer had ordered special treatment. According to Sanner's statements under cross-examination the gist of these letters was that inmates should not be assigned to other camps. There was no mention of special treatment in the letters. As Sanner himself admits, he saw nothing unusual in these letters, when he read them. According to Sanner's own statements, his claim in paragraph 44 of this affidavit is nothing more than pure assumption. However, this assumption lacks a factual basis.
Now we shall show that Office D-II had nothing to do either with special treatment of inmates or any treatment of inmates in concentration camps at all. In the documents presented by the prosecution, the term "special treatment" is exclusively used in connection with executions or project "14F13". I refer here to Document NO-256, Prosecution Exhibit No. 141 in Document Book V, Document NO-905, Prosecution Exhibit No. 167 in Document Book VI, Document NO-168 deals with the competent authority for executions and the Action 14F13 and from Exhibit No. 168 the competence for the ordering of executions and the Action 14F13 also become evident. In Document NO-256, Exhibit No. 141, Hermann Pister, the former camp commander at Buchenwald, describes how an application for a death sentence by a concentration camp commander was handled. Here too, the question of the competent authority is mentioned. It can be seen, from the above mentioned documents, that the Reich Main Security Office was, without doubt, the exclusive competent authority that could order special treatment. In so far as Office Group D was concerned with it, it was a question of forwarding the requests on to the RSHA.
Document NO-656, Prosecution Exhibit 140, Document Book V, does not contradict this. In this letter, the Chief of Office Group D instructs the camp commanders to send a request for death by hanging to Office Group D in cases of proved sabotage by inmates. However, this letter mentions nothing for the competent authority for ordering the requested execution. The fact that the letter is signed by I.V. Maurer does not prove that Office D-II had anything to do with the case. It can be seen from the letterhead that the letter originated with the Chief of Office Group D. The file mark also shows that the letter was not written in Office D-II but in Office D-I; that was the central office. Maurer signed this letter for the Chief of the Office Groups. This letter was marked secret and went exclusively to the camp commanders. Office D-II did not receive a copy. It is obvious that the types of special treatment in concentration camps Mauthausen that were described by Sanner are punitive measures of the camp administration which are not sanctioned by the camp regulations or anywhere else. Punitive companies were prohibited since 1943 in the interest of the labor supply and due to the direct protest of Maurer. Therefore it seemed impossible from the first that Sanner's Statement in paragraph 44 of his affidavit could be essentially correct. According to Sanner's story, during his cross-examination in which he can only vaguely remember the events he describes, he also never found out just how the inmaters who were supposed to be the subject matter of Sommer's letters, lost their life and who gave the requisite orders.
In reference to this he speaks of the camp commanders, the concentration camp officer, the labor service leader, and the block leader. He can only recall that after a few days these prisoners were reported to the labor office of concentration camp Mauthausen as deceased. Without any reasons, Sanner and his co-prisoners took it for granted that this meant the application of special treatment and connected it with the letters presumably signed by Sommer.
After the story Sanner told under cross-examination, it is not possible to make a statement such as Sanner did in paragraph 44 of his affidavit. This is a typical affidavit made to provide the missing proof that would show a connection of the Defendant Sommer with crimes that are supposed to have occurred in concentration camp Mauthausen. I have offered proof that such a connection never existed in the affidavits of Maurer Moser, Hermann Pister, Phillipp Grimm, and Albert Schwartz, and another affidavit by Maurer. I have presented them as Supplements III and IV to Document Book Sommer.
The conviction that such a connection did exist behind which Sanner hid during cross examination for lack of any real basis for his frivolous and irresponsible assumption, is even more meaningless, because it is also out of the question that Sanner saw any letters, such as described, that were signed by I.V. Karl Sommer. Letters to the effect that certain prisoners were not to be put to work or turned over to another camps were never sent from Office D-II to the concentration camps. The only possible explanation is as follows:
In a few exceptional instances Office D-II requested that from the camps by wire a list of names of specialists who were needed by different firms. If, in answer to such an inquiry by Office D-II several camps simultaneously reported enough specialists, so that the supply exceeded the demand, then those camps, whose reports were not acted upon, were informed that the prisoners they had reported would not be required. Sanner may have seen letters of this type, but if so, not with the signature of Karl Sommer.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Belzer, are counsel for Hohberg or Pook here?
Well, I wish someone would go and tell them that they are up next, one or the other, to follow Dr. Belzer, that means Dr. Ratz or Dr. Heim. Would someone be good enough to tell them that we expect one or the other of them to go on immediately after Dr. Belzer is through.
DR. FROESCHMAN: Your Honors, I have requested Dr. Gawlik and Dr. Fritsch to come here.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, is Dr. Gawlik ready? Had he got his translation?
DR. FROESCHMAN: I asked my colleagues Gawlik and Fritsch to come here immediately, because Your Honor was asking for then before, about the statements. I am not precisely informed -
THE PRESIDENT: I see.
Are you ready for Pook.
DR. RATZ: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Good.
DR. BELZER: In the first place, neither Sommer nor Maurer or any other member of the German civil or military administration signed official letters with his first and surname. In the second place, it was here a matter of inmate labor allocation and Sommer was not authorized to signed such letters, nor did he do so.
It is also quite possible that Sanner saw letters from Office D-II with Sommer's signature, which, however, were only concerned with a criticism of inaccuracies in the Surveys of Prisoner Employment. And thus the ominous declaration which Sanner made in paragraph 44 of his affidavit, of the 25/4/47, which is strictly out of poetery and truth, mixed with a very poor memory.
Sanner himself deviated under cross examination from this declaration as far as fear of documentary proof to the contrary necessitated, inso far as it touches upon the person of the Defendant Sommer. Sanner's affidavit is refuted in its entirety. This, however, means the loss of any possibility of connecting the defendant Karl Sommer with crimes which were perhaps committed by the personnel of the concentration camp Mauthausen. However, I cannot neglect to point out considering the fact that his statements have been proved and admitted to be unreliable, in so far as it was possible to check them, that justifiable doubts may be entertained whether the inmates Sanner mentions actually did lose their lives.