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.
Whoever has his statements refuted, in so far as they can be checked, cannot expect that those parts that cannot be checked shall be believed.
I come now to the testimony of the Witness Bielski. The former concentration camp inmate Bielski, who was heard as a witness by this court, stated under oath during his examination on 14 April of this year that he recognized the defendant Sommer as the man who in the first part of 1944 killed two prisoners at concentration camp Auschwitz with a brick. In identifying Sommer, Bielski stated that the defendant Sommer was at concentration camp Auschwitz from 1942 until 1944 as labor allocation officer, and that he was a Hauptsturmfuehrer, had often ridden in a heavy motorcycle with a side car, usually carried a dog whipp, was known for his brutality and famous for his method of cracking skulls. During cross examination, Bielski declared that he had seen the Defendant Karl Sommer very often in different seasons about 20 to 30 times, perhaps more often.
The question of whether he had actually seen any peculiarities in the uniform and the manner in which Sommer had walked Bielski denied. These statements are contradicted by the following facts:
1. The defendant Karl Sommer was never labor allocation officer and at no time did he belong to the personnel of Auschwitz camp.
Sommer was only twice altogether in Auschwitz and, moreover, only once in the concentration camp. These two visits of Sommer to Auschwitz took place before and after the time given by the witness Witness Bielski at which time the murders described by him were alleged to have taken place. The 1st visit took place in the summer of 1943 on the occasion of a labor allocation meeting in Auschwitz. At the same time the concentration camp was inspected by all of the people taking part in the meeting and the second visit to Auschwitz was in October 1944. That time Sommer did not set foot in the concentration camp at all and besides, Bielski, according to his own statement was no longer in the concentration camp Auschwitz at this time.
It was only on 20 April 1944 that Sommer was promoted to Hauptsturmfuehrer. Therefore, at the time when he was supposed to have committed the murders in Auschwitz he was not yet Hauptsturmfuehrer.
4. Sommer never wore the official uniform prescribed for SS officers. On account of a war injury he could not wear high hoots and without exception wore long trousers. For that reason, Sommer is very distinct from other officers.
5. The defendant Sommer did not use a motorcycle either in his duty in Oranienhurg or during his visit in Auschwitz. None of the camp personnel in Auschwitz used a heavy cycle with side car during their duty.
6. The defendant Sommer is not a man who uses force. He is generally characterized as friendly, decent and correct, kindly disposed towards, and possessed of, far-reaching human consideration for the concentration camp inmates.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the witness Biolski saw the defendant Sommer here in the courtroom in Nurnberg for the first time in his life. The witness who asserts that he saw Sommer 20 to 30 times, perhaps more often, who says he remembers details like the dog-whip alleged to have been carried frequently by the defendant Sommer, cannot remember seeing the defendant Sommer one with long trousers instead of high boots. That would be quite understandable of Sommer had he only worn the long trousers by way of exception instead of the boots prescribed as uniform for SS officers. Sommer, however, never wore high boots as an SS officer because of his injury he could not wear them. This fact has struck, everyone who had anything whatsoever to do with Sommer, except the witness Bielski! No reasonable man would demand that Bielski should have noticed this state of affairs if, according to his story, he only saw the defendant Sommer occasionally at the murders alleged to have been committed by him. While Bielski asserts that he saw the defendant Sommer at least 20 to 30 times, he maintains that he was always seeing him at different seasons of the year and according to different statements Bielski saw only non-commissioned officers in long trousers in the concentration camp Auschwitz! In other words, what struck everyone because it must strike them - did not strike Bielski. It could not strike him because he never saw the defendant Sommer in the concentration camp Auschwitz.
The Prosecution, too, could obviously not avoid the impression that Bielski's statement is incorrect because defendant Sommer did not belong to the personnel of the Auschwitz concentration camp as labor allocation officer or in any capacity whatsoever. They tried to save Bielski's statement by construing the possibility of frequent official journeys on the part of Sommer to Auschwitz.
This possibility is eliminated by the unequivocable manifestations of the witness Rammler and further by affidavits of Maurer, Mueller and Schultz.
All attest that Sommer went on official journeys only on rare occasions. Sommer and Maurer declare that Sommer was only twice in Auschwitz. From the statements of the witness Caesar it becomes evident that on a possible visit to Auschwitz, Sommer could not have obtained a motorcycle for himself in order to travel around in the camp. And even if Sommer, as the Prosecution thought, had a reason, as Maurer's deputy, to undertake frequent official journeys to Auschwitz to solve problems of labor allocation, then in the logical course of events Sommer would only have had to deal with the camp headquarters. This, however, was situated outside who actual concentration camp. It is not possible to see what could have caused Sommer to walk around in the protective custody camp, or ride around in a motorcycle. On, - what advantage could it have been to Sommer to enter a room suddenly and strike down an inmate who was secretly cooking potatoes for himself, or to slay an inmate with a brick who just did not happen to be working when he noticed him in passing by? Whether an inmate secretly cooked potatoes for himself, or another inmate, while working, looked up from his work and did not work - certainly is a thing which could not have interested Sommer as an outsider - quite apart from the fact that Sommer could not enter any concentration camp without being accompanied by someone sent with him by the camp commandant office. Therefore, he could not possibly move about freely in a concentration camp. In the description of the two murders, however, not a word is mentioned of Sommer's escort. Only on other occasions does Bielski maintain that he saw the defendant Sommer escorted by other persons. The murders asserted by Bielski can only have been committed, if at all, by a member of the camp personnel. And there is no doubt that Sommer did not belong to the camp personnel.
From all these arguments the impossibility of connecting the defendant Karl Sommer with murders in the Auschwitz concentration camp, as done by Bielski, is evident; but then, the question arisesHow did Bielski come to make this statement, and how was it possible for him to identify the defendant Sommer here in the courtroom?
Bielski neither saw nor ever heard of the defendant Sommer in the Auschwitz concentration camp. Therefore, it is not possible but that Bielski learned something about the defendant Sommer while he was here in Nurnberg as a witness. Originally I suspected that Bielski, in describing the murders alleged to have been committed by the defendant Sommer, was quoting more or less faithfully the book by Kogon, "Der SS-Staat". Both descriptions of the brute Sommer have so much in common! Not once is the dog-whip missing.
By the witnesses Rammler and Pook, as well as by the confirmation of the English camp management of the internment camp Neuengamme it has become evident that in the Auschwitz concentration camp at the time in question there was a block leader by the name of Sommerer. According to the statement of Rammler this Sommerer was pointed out by former members of Auschwitz concentration camp as having been extremely brutal. It can be safely assumed that Bielski knew this block leader Sommerer and, when he heard the name of the defendant Sommer here in Nurnberg now, connected the two with each other. Bielski further asserted that the had a very good memory. And the prosecution expressly had Bielski confirm that he trained his memory, particularly for names. Nevertheless, it happened that Bielski gave the labor allocation officer Sell the name "Held". Because the two names of Sommer and Sommerer sound alike, the confusion is possible, and this has become evident from the affidavits of Rammler and Pook. To establish which of the defendants is Sommer, then, required no magic on the part of an interested party.
I refer only to the brochures which are published for Allied visitors to the Nurnberg trials. In these brochures the names of the defendants and the order in which they are seated in the defendants' dock are given. Also everything of interest in the indictment and concerning the personality of the defendants can be seen from this brochure. It is an obvious assumption that Bielski saw this brochure. From it Bielski learned that Karl Sommer, who was a defendant, had something to do with labor allocation and was an SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer. However, these two facts did not fit the description of block leader Sommerer, who was obviously known to Bielski. Bielski was not beaten. He described the defendant Sommer simply as labor allocation officer of the Auschwitz concentration camp and it looks as if for this purpose Bielski's block leader had to change the name Sommer for the name "Winter".
I refer here to page 361 of the German transcript. That Bielski could identify the defendant Sommer only on the grounds of information received here in Nurnberg and pictures which he saw before is evident from the fact that Bielski, in the light of repeated questions of the defense, as well as the prosecution, as to whether before the interrogation he had seen pictures of the defendants, in particular of the defendant Sommer. Yielding to the pressure of the Prosecution, later on, however, Bielski admitted that in fact pictures were submitted to him and that, for the last time, hardly an hour before he disputed that fact here under oath. This statement made about an alleged misunderstanding to explain his previous opposition is not true. It is impossible that in the question of the defense he made a mistake about, or misinterpreted the words "submitted" and "shown". According to the agreement in the wording in the German and English records of this session, my first question to the witness Bielski with reference to the pictures was:
"When have you seen the last photograph of the defendant Sommer?"
This question contains neither the word "submitted" nor the word "shown." The question itself, because of its clear meaning, could not be misunderstood at all. The witness Bielski did not misunderstand it either, as it becomes evident from his answer which, in accordance with the precise corresponding wording of the two records reads:
"I have not seen photographs at all. " The witness Bielski, with this answer intentionally and deliberately lied.
Bielski did intentionally and deliberately answer the question of the defense whether during the time between the interrogation on the previous Friday and the beginning of the Monday session he had talked with any member of the prosecution. There is no doubt about that from the answer of the witness. What is more, Bielski, could not have misunderstood the question on this matter addressed to him. He had the incredible audacity to deny these two facts flatly as being incorrect to the prosecutor who himself had submitted pictures of the defendants, among them of the defendant Sommer, too, to him, and with whom he had talked immediately before the Monday session. He just denied these two facts as being incorrect.
The witness Bielski was clearly conscious of the fact that he had never seen the defendant Sommer at Auschwitz, and that he quite wrongly accused the defendant Sommer of the murders at Auschwitz. He naturally know best the source of his knowledge about the personal appearance of the defendant Sommer. With the questions of the defense and of the prosecutor Mr. Robbins, when he asked Bielski, he saw his edifice of lies crashing to the ground if he replied truthfully. Therefore, the incredibly bold denial of facts which he had to admit later at the instigation of the prosecution.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
If Bielski knew the block leader Sommerer and saw the latter commit murders which he then attributed here to the defendant Sommerer it may well be that originally the similarity in the names caused Bielski to confuse the two persons. That, however, in fact, the two persons are not identical, Bielski knew, at the latest, the amount he saw the defendant Sommer here. Considering the photographs furnished by the camp management of the internment camp Neuengamme of the former block leader Sommerer, which are attached to the Document Sommer No. 37 Exhibit No, handed over by me -- there is no confusion possible between the two persons. If Bielski did not know block leader Sommerer, then the whole story about the murders in Auschwitz with which Bielski tried to incriminate the defendant Sommer are to be regarded as pure invention. Be that as it may - insofar as the witness Bielski connected the defendant Sommer with murders in Auschwitz he committed sheer perjury. And, to prevent this perjury from coming to light, Bielski committed additional perjury by denying that he ever saw photographs of the defendant Sommer.
The statement of Bielski as a witness can never be the basis of proof of built against the defendant Sommer. The evidence has shown quite clearly that the defendant Sommer did not commit the murders with which he is charged and that he could not have committed them at all.
I am now coming to the question of guilt.
THE PRESIDENT: You have taken much more than the allotted time. You have had an hour and a quarter this afternoon, and you had at least a half hour before lunch. Is there anything that you can omit?
DR. BELZER: I would only like to read statements on the questions of guilt, which will take approximately ten minutes. Then I shall refer to the contents of my final plea.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, how much more time all together will you need?
DR. BELZER: Approximately ten more minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Go ahead.
DR. BELZER: The defendant Sommer, when accused by the prosecutor that he only remembered events he wanted to remember, stated here on the witness stand that he entered the stand in order to speak the truth. And no one able to see and hear the defendant in the three days when he was being examined and cross-examined was able to resist the impression that Sommer actually spoke the truth. Sommer was also not averse to speak of matters he did not have to mention, as the prosecution would never have been aware of them without the defendant's willingness to speak the truth. The statements made by defendant Sommer could not only not be refuted but they have been proved from all points from evidence presented by the defense. Sommer's statements in their entirety must, therefore, be the basis for the evaluation of the evidence and especially for the examination of the question of guilt.
Sommer considered concentration camps as a special form of imprisonment and an instrument used by the state in its preventive battle against crime. Neither during his civilian employment with the German Earth and Stoneworks Ltd. lasting for about a year, nor during his later employment in the Office D II, did the defendant find cause to change his opinion.
Sommer never became aware of the fact that people were taken to the concentration Camps simply to supply working power. He affirms most distinctly that he never saw an order or directive from which he could have gained the knowledge that it was the aim and purpose of the concentration camps to torture people or to work people to death. It would never have entered the defendant Sommer's mind that the labor allocation of the concentration camp inmates could in any way be brought into incompatibility with the moral law. He only became acquainted with the accomplishment of labor allocation within the framework of the regulations also applicable to prisoners of justice. To him, having no insight into the methods of sending people into the concentration camps, it was impossible to imagine a difference between prisoners of Court No. II, Case No. 4.justice and concentration camp inmates.
Sommer was never able to observe in any way that the labor of concentration camp inmates by Office D II, acceding to orders by Pohl, was carried out under inhumane conditions, either in their work with SS agencies or in industrial plants. On the contrary, anything Sommer heard and saw at the Office D II in regard to the accomplishment of labor allocation was adjusted to the aim of maintaining the efficiency and increasing the interest of the concentration camp inmates in their work. While in the witness stand the defendant made detailed statements in regard to measures taken in this respect. These measures had not been put down on paper but influenced the life at the camp and the treatment of the inmates favorably in a very large measure as none of the former inmates testifying here as witness was able to deny seriously, and as it has all been comprehensively thankfully acknowledged by the former inmates Gross and WeissRuthel in their books. The defendant Sommer could not become aware that work under slave-like conditions was involved herein.
It has never come to the defendant Sommer's attention that prisoners of war were taken into the concentration camps, and that they were then allocated to work from there by the Office D II. However, it was well known to him that civilians from abroad were sent to the concentration camps. Sommer heard just as little of the reason for their imprisonment as of that of the inmates of German nationality. All premises were lacking for the defendant Sommer to decide whether, and in how far, labor allocation of foreign concentration camp inmates was contrary to the international law, and especially the Hague Convention. These questions can only be answered from one case to the next. Prime requisite is knowledge of legal regulations and the manner of work for which they are allocated. This knowledge could not be expected from Sommer according to his education and rank in office. In the fight for life and death in which the German nation had been involved since 1941 against Russia, in the fight which, according to official German propaganda was not supposed to be a fight of Germany but a fight of Europe to guard Court No. II, Case No. 4.itself against Bolshevism, a man like Sommer, who believed in this propaganda and who, according to all he had seen and heard in his youth had to believe, could never realize that the drafting of foreign laborers and even of concentration camp inmates to work in this fight against Bolshevism which threatened German and European culture could be something immoral, objectionable or criminal.