"The sentences, when finally after those who had been condemned arrived, the execution seemed unavoidable; it could be avoided; that was between the meantime, the beginning of April 1945; that the condemned persons in the report, via the General State, the General Public Prosecutor to the Reich Ministry of Justice made the suggestion, the seemingly pious usggestion to have the candidates for death who were French and Belgian NN prisoners to exchange them against members of the Werwolves organization." Ministerial Counselor, I do not know whether the Court knows what the expression "Werwolves" means, and I would like you to make a statement to the effect especially in answer to the question, whether the Werwolves were similar to the Belgian and French partisans.
AAt this time of the collapse the party made propaganda for sabotage acts in the occupied territories; so-called Werwolves were supposed to do these acts; one could call them a type of partisan, but at that time I made the suggestion not in order to point out a similarity, but only to have an excuse not to execute the sentences; at that time I saw no other possibility any more, and this counsel was given to me first as a joke almost, and I handed it on because I was counting with having the Munich General Public Prosecutor, who was known to have limited mental abilities, that he would fall for this suggestion.
Q In your statement, however, you also mentioned the Oberlandegerirchtspresident.
AAt that time the General Public Prosecutor Herb; the Oberlandesgerichtspresident told me that he might have seen through this game, but at this moment he did not want to undertake anything more.
DR. SCHILF: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
BY DR. DOETZER: (Attorney for Defendant Nebelung)
Q May it please the Court, I ask for permission to continue the cross examination. Ministerialrat, I have only a few questions. In your affidavit you mentioned that the people's Court during a certain period had trials in Donauwoerth against so-called NN prisoners, Nacht and Nebel prisoners.
Were you ever present during such a trial at the People's Court?
A Never in my life.
Q Do you know which Senate or division of the People's Court held the trials in Donauwoerth?
A No.
Q Do you know which senate was competent for NN prisoners altogether?
A No.
Q About that you don't remember anything?
A No.
DR. DOETZER: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further cross examination on the part of any of the Defense Counsel? If not, have you some redirect examination?
BY MR. KING:
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
Q Just very short, your Honor. Did I understand you correctly in your answer to a question on cross examination whether or not you were, shall we say, experienced in international Law? I thought you answered that question, "no", you were not; was my understanding correct?
A No. As a student I interested myself a little bit in international law in the same way as today I am also dealing somewhat with international law cases, but I did not have any specialized knowledge.
Q I see. Did you apply your answer regarding the international law question to the Nacht and Nebel cases which you examined?
A Yes; on the cases I did not see in which questions of international law would have played a role, played a part.
Q In other words, in the Nacht and Nebel cases.
A May I correct one thing. It is possible that occasionally other foreign convicts had to be executed, condemned persons had to be executed, but under points of view of international law these sentences which were against partisans and members of resistance movements in France and Belgium, I did not remember them as such; only those I regarded as cases coming under the international law.
Q In applying your standard of non-violation of international law to the NN cases, what point in the Nacht and Nebel program did you consider?
A I do'not know the program, and I cannot judge what in this NN decree was applicable from the point of view of international law and which was contrary to international law. I only examined the sentences as to whether they were handed down because of acts according to which death sentences should be handed down according to military law; the general NN decree of Hitler and individual decrees of the Ministry of Justice I did not know; I only had the sentences of the People's Court in front, before me, and I read them under the point of view trying to find out what did those people do and is a death sentence admissible here. I have to say in these sentences it regularly occurred that not only the matters which spoke against the defendants but also what spoke for them had been cited. The result, however, was in spite of the extenuating circumstances, the sentences were a death sentence; for example, at the conclusion of a sentence there was a sentence particularly like this: In spite of the recognized fact that the defendant acted out of love for his country, according to the hard military law, the death sentence has to be pronounced.
Q Did you notice in your examination of these case files any indication that the defendants tried before the People's Court were denied defense counsel for instance, or did that matter not concern you when you were examining the cases? Perhaps the question contains two questions, but let me put them separately. In examining the case files which came from the People's Court, did you look to such things as whether or not the witness was permitted, whether or not the accused was permitted defense counsel?
A I never did see the actual files, as I said already at the beginning of my testimony. However, I believe that I remember that the Oberreichsanwalt stated in each case who acted as defense counsel and who could act as defense counsel for the defendant. I had the definite impression that in each and every case there were defense counsel appointed.
Q Did you gather any impression as to whether or not the accused were permitted witnesses in the cases which you examined?
A I do not believe that the defendants in Donauwoerth and Bayern were allowed to have witnesses examined; the witnesses must have been in Belgium and France and other countries of the defendants. I only was under the impression that those things which were actually mentioned in the sentences about the offenses committed by the defendant, that they had actually committed these acts, but defense witnesses were for instance character witnesses could not be examined.
Q So that the ultimate fact of whether or not the acts charged were committed or not, you know from your examination of the cases were not established or disapproved by witnesses.
A I do not know any more whether a confession of the defendants was expressly cited in the sentences, however I was under the impression that the actual findings of the sentences, especially of all the details, had been mentioned, were either based upon testimony of witnesses or on direct confessions. When I read the sentences I had no doubts as to the actual correctness of the facts, only as I already mentioned I sometimes felt that the sentence was somewhat severe. The thought that these sentences were pronounced without any sound basis, that idea never came to me. The actual facts in the case, the sentences sounded convincing, and also from farewell letters I occasionally saw that the defendants did not regard themselves as guilty in the meaning of the law; on the contrary they were proud that they had committed these acts for their country.
That is my opinion that the sentences were according to law; these people were proud; from their farewell letters I remember such sentences: I am proud of my country, to die for France, or such things: I don't regret anything, etc. That particularly impressed me in those farewell letters.
Q Von Ammon came to Munich in January of 1945, I believe that is the month; was that in any way, insofar as you recollect in connection with Nacht and Nebel witnesses held there, as prisoners?
A. No, I don't think that was connected with that. I believe it was because the relationship between the Reich Ministry of Justice and the Munich judiciary authorities and been interrupted almost completely by the air attacks, and therefore in the larger cities an immediate commission of the Reich Minister of Justice had to be present.
Q. I am not quite clear as to the extent of aid, if any, you received as a result of your appeal to von Ammon. You stated that you had known him for 15 years. Now, aside from the fact that he did not turn you in for talking about a prohibitive subject, which might be logically expected with 15 years acquaintanceship with him. What concrete results were achieved. Were any of the prisoners under sentence, about whom you discussed with von Ammon actually saved from execution as a result of your conversation with him?
A. That I do not know. I know of the many persons who had been convicted, among whom, there were many Germans, some are now again at liberty. I made this statement on purpose because I wanted to find out whether the SS perhaps had shot those convicted people at the last moment, but I could unfortunately not find out about it. I don't know. If I may also say this: I was under the impression that von Ammon at that time could not do any thing else, but to be quiet in the matter, and to express his agreement with my tactics. I would have noticed immediately if he would have been a Nazi -he would have at least told me, I am not reporting you for I have known you for 15 years. He was obviously in agreement, only he was afraid.
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask one question.
BY JUDGE BRAND:
Q. In January 1945 you had this conversation.
A. The first conversation in January, but at that time I was still very curious.
The second conversation was later but I do not remember the exact date. It happened that von Ammon might remember that himself. It must have been in March or possibly the first days of April or possibly also in February, but in this case, it was later than January.
Q. In fact, it was almost coincidental with the end of the war, was it not?
A. No, it was somewhat before that time.
MR. KING: If there are no further questions, the Prosecution has no further questions to ask of this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
(The witness withdrew from the court room).
MR. KING: In accordance with the agreement, I believe at this time, the Prosecution has no further documents to offer or witnesses to call until the Court meets in session again on next Monday morning.
DR. SCHILF: If the Court pleases, and if you still have time for a few minutes, I would like to make a correction, that is, or an objection against an exhibit. I would like to make a correction, or objection to exhibit 327, NG-247. At the moment I am not in a position to state the number of the document book --- it is document book 6, page 105 in the German document book 6, exhibit 327.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 327 begins at page 111 in the English document book 6. The document that begins on page 105 is exhibit 326.
DR. SCHILF: I only Can state the German page. I hope that the translators have an English copy.
THE PRESIDENT: The best identification is the document number.
DR. SCHILF: Yes, I stated the number. It is NG 247.
THE PRESIDENT: That is found on page 111 of book 6.
DR. SCHILF: We have been given the opportunity to see the photostat of this document. The gentlemen of the Prosecution had an initial "M" and had identified it as the initial of the defendant Mettgenberg.
Now, since we have the photostat before us, we found out that the "M" is the initial of another official whose name is Mallzahn; so, I have to object to this document. I have to object to it in that it does not concern the defendant Mettgenberg at all. I regret that I can only make this objection now, at this time, but it was due to the fact that the document was submitted in very quick order and we could not study the photostat in detail. I may also say on the document there is, however, a directive on the left side of the bottom, it begins with the words, "For the signature of the Minister", and it states further "Via Ministerialdirector Dr. Mettgenberg. The conclusion could be drawn that Mettgenberg could have written this, but actually when this document was circulated Mettgenberg was not in Berlin at all but was on a trip. Therefore, he has no knowledge of this document, of this letter. I will later explain this further when I bring the defense case up. I only now want to clarify the initial "M" .
THE PRESIDENT: We will hear from the Prosecution as to whether or not they still insist it is Mettgenberg's signature.
MR. KING: The answer of the Prosecution is simply that the initial, in spite of the statement by Dr. Schilf, seems very similar to other initials which we know were Mettgenberg's. As Dr. Schilf pointed out it is quite logical to reach the conclusion it might very well be Mettgenberg's because on the bottom of the letter we see the matter was submitted to him for signature or was to have been submitted to him for signature. However, as to the determination of whether this is Mettgenberg's initial or not, it seems to me we might take that up outside of Court and report our conclusions to the Court rather than take up the time here in trying to determine it. I think we can reach an agreement if we can have some proof it is not Mettgenberg's initial, and we certainly will agree if his initial does not appear on it.
We will, however, insist that this letter in the course of office routine, was to have been sent to Mettgenberg, as is very apparent from the letter.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection does not go to the admissibility of the document, but it appears that it is only a question now as to whether Mettgenberg had any connections with it. Now, if you can agree out of Court one way or the other, that will easily settle it, but if the Prosecution still insists Mettgenberg had some relation to it, I see no remedy other than to bring it up as a defense matter in your case.
MR. KING: I can answer part of that question now. The Prosecution will insist that Mettgenberg had something to do with this letter since he was supposed to receive a copy. The only ground of contention will be whether or not this initial that appears on it is actually Mettgenberg's.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what I had in mind when I said if you could agree.
Is there anything further before the Tribunal before we adjourn.
If not, we will recess at this tine until next Monday morning at 9:30.
(The Tribunal then adjourned until 0930 hours, Monday, 28 April 1947).
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Josef Alstoetter, et al., Defendants, sitting at Numbers, Germany, on 28 april 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Carrington T. Marshall, Presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III.
Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Marshal, you will please ascertain if the defendants are present.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of defendant Engert who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Engert has been excused at his own request and the proper notation will be male.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The prosecution calls as witness, one, Benedict Wein.
BENEDICT WEIN, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BRAND: Will you raise your right hand and be sworn. Repeat after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE BRAND: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. Witness, would you please tell the court your name and title?
A. My name is Benedict Wein, priest at the penitentiary at Amberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Have his spell his surname, please.
THE WITNESS: W-E-I-N.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. Father Wein, would you please describe for the court, briefly your professional career as prison chaplain at Amberg penitentiary.
A. My entire career just at Amberg? Do you want me to describe my entire career as chaplain of prisons or just at Amberg?
Q. I would like you to briefly describe your entire career as chaplains of prisons.
A. In the year 1928, on the first of August, as an auxilliary chaplain -- curate -- I came to the penitentiary at Straubing. That was a preparation period, intended as such. There was another gentleman there-- an older colleague of mine -- who was the president there. I came in his place. He had been curate before. I remained there until 1931, until the first of December-- that is, in Straubing. On the first of December, I came to Amberg because there the position of Catholic priest was vacant. On the first of February 1932, I became president there, and since then I am at that penitentiary in that position until now.
Q. Father Wein, in the affidavit which you gave sometime in the past, and which is now evidence before this court, you stated that at sometime during the war you were asked to screen certain files of the prison inmates as to whether or not they wore asocial. You further said in your affidavit that that work which you did later was immediate ly redone by an official of the Ministry of Justice names Engert who visited Amberg prison. Is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Father Wein, from the way in which Engert rescreened the files of those prison inmates, were you able to tell what was Engert's definition of an asocial person?
A. I did not really hear a definition of asocial clement, but I could gather that from a remark which was told to me by Oberreigierungsrat Popp, on the occasion of a private conversation -who shot himself later. When these poor people, in spite of our objections, had been sent to Mauthausen, I put the question as to what really caused that commission to do so, or what the opinion of the commission had been about social and asocial.
I was told very carefully that one was afraid that in case there would be a revolution, that these people would take the lead, and that then there would be a tremendous scandal. Particularly one of the people who accompanied Engert, a D** Maier, told me that he was officially suspiciously afraid of the Bavarian slaughterers, and that is why he hated those knife throwers. That was, and I can't explain it in any way, the reason was that these people would act hostile later on or one could assume that there was a hostility in them against the national socialist state and all it stood for -- its program and s**en -- and that is why they had to be removed.
I spoke later about these matters with people who understand something about them, and they also said that that must be the reason, and they said that was correct. I spoke to an old gentleman -- an old official -- who for years, I believe for 40 years, was an official, and he said that was correct for one had to remove these people just as one has to remove the insane, as one has to remove the Jews -- and that is my conviction before God.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Witness, will you kindly be a little more slow with your speech. It's hard for the interpreter to follow you.
BY MR. WOLLEYHAN:
Q. Father Wein, at any time before this program of transferring prison inmates to concentration camps began, at any time before that, was there over a rehabilitation program in the prisons that you know about?
A. I do not understand the question. Would you please repeat it again?
Q. Before prison inmates began to be transferred tr concentration camps, before that, did the prisons ever have a rehabilitate program to restore prison inmates to society?
A. Yes. Bavaria had an institution, I believe -- and I could not tell the year accurately -- I believe since the year 1923. It began at that time by that Ministerial Director, Dr. Diegen in Munich. We had three steps in carrying out the sentences. When the people were brought into the institution, then for a while they stayed as prisoners. After having been there for a while, they could come into the Fuehrungs Klasse, in the group of those who were put there for good behavior. And after they had been there half a year -- that changed according to decrees by the Minister -- then they could come into Category 2. If they behaved well after that, after years, they came into Category 3. I don't know whether you want to know what that is and what the advantages were that they had in these different cate-gories. Do you want me to speak about that?
Q. Father, we first want to know what advantages accrued to a prison inmate after he reached this so--called Category 3?
A. After Category 3 -- Stufe 3 -- Category 3 such as Category 2 had an outward advantage. I believe they had one line on their sleeve. I don't know whether it was a yellow one or red one. That is Category 2. And Category 3, I believe, had a blue insignia on their sleeve. Category 3, contrary to the others, had very nice cells. They were whitewashed. They were permitted to have flowers in their cells. They also had more liberty. They could write letters more often than others and they enjoyed confidential positions among the inmates.
A. (Continued.) And besides that there are some more details; for instance they could walk, they could take walks with the priest; that was intended, but it was never carried out; it was on the program, but it was never carried out. But we had individual prisoners, such as one man, who on the basis of these rules could go out for hours with the priest in civilian clothes and then return; that was an advantage. Then another advantage, of course, a person who was in category three had the best chance to get a pardon within the reasonable time. That was always mentioned as the main reason, the advantage; in category three a man who was in category throe for years, who had good conduct, had the hope that in the future, sometime in the future, he would got out. That was on the basis of an expert opinion which was to the court and signed by the Chief of Prison.
Q. Father Wein, did this system of rehabilitating prison inmates and giving them increased advantages eventually point toward restoring them to society; did that program continue until the end of the war?
A. No. I could not stake the year any more when it ended, but when a prisoner was sentenced in 1935 this system continued also in the penitentiary as in the prison, but in 1935 there came a decree that people who were sentenced for the first time should enjoy that system and it continued for a while, but I do not know for sure any more how long: I believe that only during the letter years it was discontinued because in the year 1943 my assistant came to Mauthausen, I believe it was in October, October 18th; he was in category two; he was only thirty-five, and had been put into category two in the prison, so that still existed at that time. He could not get into category three any more, as much as I know because this had been stopped from Berlin; because Berlin didn't want any more of that system and ridiculed it.
Q. Do you know any actual examples of prison inmakes who could and would have been rehabilitated to category three, but instead were transferred to a concentration camp?
A. Well, I could not remember a name at this moment. May be I can talk about Crahilsheim who I was very sorry for; he was the best one I had in thirty-five years, which means a lot, and I have seen quite a lot; and I would have intervened for him to get him into category three I am sure; I am convinced that his conduct would be good; there were many others who would have been eligible for category three, but I do not remember the names now.
Q. Apart from the fact that you can't remember their names, what happened to them?
A. Well, these people, this is the way it happened. When Engert and his two associates left, it was very quiet; nothing was said; people asked what was going to happen now; what is going to happen to these people; are they going to be transferred to the other places, may be to Straubing, to protective custody; nobody could tell where these people were supposed to go. There was something there -- something bad, and then finally the decree came; I haven't seen the decree; everything was very secret; it was kept very secret, but I saw in the office a list, and on that list there was a number of names, something like twenty or thirty -- I didn't count them; some of them I copied, and these people, about those people it said opposite the top -- to be transferred, the following to be transferred. They didn't say where to; it didn't say what would happen to them; it was very secretive -no noise about it -- the way, the manner in which these people wire transferred. There was the first shipment on 26 July, 1943 -- that is what my diary shows, the diary which I kept at that time; the second shipment, among them also was my dean, by a coincidence -- may be it wasn't a coincidence ---- the Protestant at the same time also was sent away. At that time, if I am not mistaken, on the 18th of November, of the same year, 1944, or 1943, I couldn't say for sure not. I cant remember the year precisely now; I could look it up, but these people however were transferred. I do not know who came for them. I said goodbye to these poor people, and throughout my entire life I shall not forget the sad expressions on their faces which expressed terror, and in their eyes when they shook hands and said goodbye to me, and said where are we going to be sent.
I had to remain silent: I couldn't say anything, because otherwise I would have been among them one hour later and sent to a concentration camp in the same way as thousands and thousands of our colleagues. I had to keep silent; I did not lie; I just shrugged my shoulders. And then a transport came for these people; I heard it was the Gestapo who came for them; they were not brought away by our people. Later I was told that -- I was told yesterday by the witness who was in charge of these lists, that later in December another shipment went out; and then in January of the next year there were approximately, it may have been one hundred people, but among them not only such of those who had life sentences, but also people down to eight years of penitentiary, who had terms down to eight years in the penitentiary, and in order to show what the caliber of those people were, I should like to describe that also, among those people, there was, for instance an inn keeper by the name of Thicsay from Draxelsried in Bavaria. The man had a big sentence, he was a good follow, only he was excitable; he was a butcher and an inn keeper; he had children; he had lived well with his wife, only as I say he was irritable, and one day in his excitement he killed his wife with a knife; everybody said, the poor chap; he couldn't hold his temper, as we say in Bavaria, but a criminal in the true sense of the word he is not. Then from the prison he was brought to a farm, after a short time, and he didn't run away; his conduct was first class, and beyond a doubt he would have gotten a pardon, that is after serving a large portion of his sentence, but that man also was transferred; that man died in the concentration camp, as I have been told, but there were much better people among those who were transferred, who for years had the best conduct. We have to imagine that men in the penitentiary, where one is serving a life sentence, have never been there before, never eaten from a tin cup.
If a man has to be for many years in the penitentiary, then it is not surprising that the unexpected happens, but there have been people who for twenty years and longer, who showed excellent conduct, always examined by the personnel and reports were given every three months about the kind of work they did, and then from time to time they, their personnel files, were brought before the conference; but dozens of times these files were scrutinized and studied time and again until one got a clear picture of these people. I have a very clear picture of them, and I could describe them in great detail; many of them had been subject for pardons already; I could name one of them now by the name of Haag, not Hach the man who was in Mauthausen, another man by the name Haag; he was an old man, beyond sixty; he was a Protestant, and as a Catholic priest I wished to care for this man; I got him clothes, a coat; he was happy as a child; I can still see him; he asked me, please help me get out; I told him to have patience, but certainly you will get out. And then suddenly under Thierack, then it started; and then under Dr. Guertner; he was an old man, but I believe misery killed him, when he suffered a stroke, as we were told, but under Thierack everything changed; there were no more pardons; and that man who already had been promised from Nurnberg, that man whose son would have taken him into his house, was transferred. I have heard, I can't believe it, that he also died; and many others who also had been eligible for pardon, who would have been suggested for pardon, because during the latter years before the Nazis came into power we had quite a number who would have been let out of the prison, and let go free. I can say that I took care of about five or six in one year, to place them again with the help of the Caritas organizations; in Munich there is a very nice old lady who took care, special care of those people, and found positions for them where we could place them. We placed one in the firm of Frey as a tailor, and another one with a Doctor Mueller in Munich. There was a male nurse who had been doing very good work in Straubing, and I got him a job there And, the prosecutor to whom he had to go first is supposed to have said, as I was told by the doctor, and he asked him:
"Doctor, how are you satisfied with the man?" And, the doctor personally said, "I am happy -- I am not only satisfied, I am happy to have gotten that man. The man did not disappoint us. The first one did not disappoint us."
Q. Father Wein, you have stated that you have had some success in the placing of prisoners who were pardoned. Now, you also started to say, I think, something about others of a similar character who would have been pardoned at a later time. Were any of those persons transferred to concentration camps?
A. Yes, I have just stated that Haag would have been pardoned for sure, and others with him who were there who had the best chance, and were transferred. I cannot mention any names, but it should be sufficient if I say quite a number of these people whom we thought capable of improvement would have have been pardoned because anyone who was considered capable would have been pardoned. Generally, the people who were not pardoned, were those who according to their conduct and previous manners, or according to their specific crimes, and according to outward signs, showed that they could not be trusted, and that soon after they were pardoned would commit another crime. Only these were the people not subject to be pardoned, but there were very few of those-- as much as I know, very few.
Q. Father Wein, you spoke a moment ago about, at least, two cases that were personally known to you of prison inmates who after they had been transferred to Mauthausen, died there?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, to your knowledge of the prison inmates that were transferred from your prison at Amberg to concentration camps, wore there many that did not return?
A. That is very hard to answer. I am not in a position to give you that information. What I know, I only know from prisoners who escaped -- who ran away, as we say, and then came to me. It was the prisoner Hach, who was here as a witness, and whom I also named to the Tribunal as a witness Then, there was a protestant who came one day to see me -I do not remember his name any more. And, another one wrote me a letter from Erfurt. I believe he had a sentence of 15 years for manslaughter. I cannot give you any accurate figures on this now, I do not know where they are now -they all disappeared, but those who survived -- I do not know
Q. Father Wein, after the files of the prison inmates at Amberg prison were rescreened by Engert and his associates, and after these prison inmates were transferred to Mauthausen, how many were left in the prison?
A. There were approximately eight or ten. I could not say that for sure because I did not have any accurate information about that, but I spoke to a gentleman yesterday just about this question -- somebody who could really say for sure because he was in charge of those lists, of keeping these lists -- there may have been eight or ten; they were people who, for the moment, could not very well be transferred on account of the work they were doing. For instance there was an excellent carpenter, cabinet maker -- two cabinet makers who were amongst the best in the workshop, and if they would have been transferred, of course, the work shop would have had difficulties -- they would not have had to stop work but it would have been difficult; another one was a very good bookbinder; another one was a very good man in the stock room -- that man, however, was transferred later. And, I believe that these people certainly would not have been saved if it were not for the Americans who liberated them; and that in the end they also would have gotten in the gas chambers.
Q. Father Wein, in your prison at Amberg, particularly toward the end of the war, say in late 1944 or early 1945, did you ever see any significant number of Polish prisoners?
A. I could not tell you the number of the Poles positively because I only had occasional contact with these questions. We received quite a number of people from Schiratz -- I do not know how that name is spelled in Poland. There was a factory of the Zeiss Works of Jena, and captured Poles worked there. This plant was removed at the end of the war and came to Amberg because that was safer. They did not only bring the machines to Amberg but also the prisoners were transferred there, to Amberg. How many there were? At any rate, there were several hundred -- two or three hundred or there may have been more. That was the main group of Poles that were transferred there. There was also clergy amongst them -- because I could not take care of them at that time, I could have been sent to prison.
Q. Father Wein, please tell us what sort of labor these Polish prisoners did?
A. These Poles were, as I said, first and primarily in that plant -- the Zeiss Works, because they were specialists, they were skilled, all those that had been transferred there. And, they worked in the fields or in the mines, transporting ore, and were also used for work as any other prisoner of the penitentiary. There was no difference in the type of work between them and other prisoners.
Q. Father Wein, did any one of those Polish prisoners ever tell you whether or not he had left Poland voluntarily?
A. They did not leave Poland voluntarily. They were prisoners, and I knew that for sure from the clergyman who was amongst them. That man had only a very short sentence -- I think about a year. He was a prisoner for crossing the border illegally, and that man was never released.