Thus the Defendant Scheide is also of the opinion that it is of no purpose to deny things which have happened.
He does not need either to twist and to turn because his actions are not such that he has to fear public opinion.
He has nothing to conceal or to hide; he has only to back up his conviction which made him become and SS man and an officer.
DR. BERGOLD (for defendant Klein): may it please the Tribunal, we have only one copy of my opening speech for the interpreter.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO): We will get copies later, though?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes; yes, certainly.
May it please the Tribunal:
In its opening speech the Prosecution has limited itself in this trial to give a general description of the SS and its character as well as of the WVHA. Aside from a few individual defendants it has not given a clear description of the remainder of the defendants. It actually has let the individual defendants disappear within the anonymity of the WVHA.
It seems to me that this method is not correct for two reasons: First of all, according to Control Council Law No. 10 there is no concept of a conspiracy to commit war crimes against humanity. The Tribunal will probably recall the statements which I made in my final pleadings in the Milch case on the subject. These statements, which were based on the verdict of the International Military Tribunal and the next of Control Council Law No. 10, I maintain to the fullest extent.
In order to save time I shall refrain from repeating them here. However, it seems to me as if the Tribunal in its verdict against Milch had been in agreement with my point of view; after all, the Tribunal has not supported the existence of a conspiracy in the points of the indictment in the Milch case. In the part of the verdict which deals with count 2 of the indictment in the Milch case, there was in my opinion included a precise analysis of the legal reasons which alone are able to support an accusation. In the first two counts the Tribunal has outlined the objective facts. The next five counts then precisely analyze when an individual defendant can be declared guilty, and when in the objective sense we are dealing with a war crime or crime against humanity The Tribunal set forth that the following had to be examined:
1. Whether the defendant personally participated in such crimes.
2. Whether they were carried out under his direction and by his orders.
3. Whether he knew, prior to the commission of the crimes, that they could turn into excesses and become inhumane.
4. Whether he had the authority or the opportunity to prevent them or to stop them.
5. If this applies, did he fail to act and did he thus become particeps criminis and an accomplice.
These clear statements in my opinion set forth that it is necessary in every case to examine the activity of an individual defendant individually and specifically for each count of the indictment.
Thus it is not permissible, with the support of the concept of a conspiracy and only because of the membership of the individual defendant in a larger organization, in this case the WVHA and the SS, to judge and condemn him here solely for these considerations.
Furthermore, such a procedure is also contrary to the actual facts, something which must always be strictly observed by justice. The Tribunal has knowledge of the book "The SS-State". Its author, KOGON, has appeared here as a witness; and it is certain that he is an opponent of the concentration camps and the WVHA. Therefore, however, his testimony must be considered the more important in those points where he limits the accusations personally raised by him with regard to their general application to the individual defendants.
I only want to quote a few paragraphs from his book.
On page 9 of the German edition he states:
"Department D was so independent that various branches were annexed to it, which actually would have belonged to the SS-FHA, as for example the "Physician in charge of the concentration camps", an institution of the medical service. On page 297 he states: "The system therefore was surrounded with a close net of secrecy. The best kept secret was the procedure within the concentration camps, which only served to spread an anonymous horror in a general political sense. To what absurdities this system led becomes evident from the fact that not even the Gestapo officials were entitled to enter the camp without a special permission from Department IV of the RSHA, although, after all, they were the ones who were responsible for the fact that thousands of people had been transferred into the concentration camps.
Therefore, only an extremely small number of Gestapo officials knew concretely just what the hell looked like to which they had condemned their victims".
I quote from page 231: "SS visitors frequently came into the camps. The camp administration had developed a strange procedure in these cases; on the one hand it tried to hide the facts, on the other hand it produced certain special exhibits.
Instruments, which might have pointed to the fact that prisoners were being tortured were not shown during the so-called sight-seeing tours and such objects were hidden. For example, the infamous "Book" a torture instrument, which usually stood on the roll-call grounds was taken into one of the barracks until the visitors had left. On one occasion this precautionary measure apparently was not complied with, and to the question of a visitor, what kind of an instrument this was, one of the camp commanders replied that this was a model for carpentry for the production of special objects. Gallows and posts which usually served for hangings were always taken away. The visitors were mainly shown around in the exemplary facilities; the hospital, the cinema, the kitchen, the laundry chamber and in the agricultural section. If they ever entered into a barracks inhabited by prisoners, then they usually entered those of the "detached" people, where the barbers for the SS as well as prisoners with special privileges were located.
These statements by Kogon show, that therefore even a member of the SS and the WVHA cannot simple be expected to have knowledge of the conditions within the camps and the aims of the WVHA. Therefore, the situation and the statements made by the Prosecution in its opening speech and the method it employed in its presentation of evidence do not seem permissible to me, namely, to simply allege that the defendant had knowledge of everything that happened within the camps and departments and industries of the WVHA.
It must also be stated here, that also the International Military Tribunal, in the part of its verdict in which the criminality of the SS was set forth, recognized it as a prerequisite for the criminality of the individual member of the SS, that this member must have had knowledge of it, or that he or the SS was used for criminal acts. This means, that the Prosecution is not relieved of its obligation to prove the concrete knowledge of the individual defendant, even though from general conclusions such a knowledge might he assumed.
The Tribunal has also stated in the Milch-verdict, that there are two important prerequisites for every trial:
1. Every person accused of a crime is to be considered innocent and 2. he is to remain under the protection of this legal presumption until his guilt has been proven beyond any doubt.
But even if this legal theory was not to be applied here and the existence of prima facie evidence to the detriment of the individual defendant is to be presumed, then the individual defendant still does not have to bring a completely exact proof to the contrary, i.e. that he did not have any knowledge. It probably is an established law throughout the world that prima facie evidence can be rendered impotent solely by giving general circumstances from which it again can be deducted prima facie that in an individual case the facts on which the first prima facie evidence is based are not applicable. In Germany this has already been an established ruling of the Reich-Court ever since the time of the German Empire. In this case that implies specifically: If a defendant brings forth circumstances, from which it can be deducted, even if only in a general sense, that contrary to general expectations he did not have any knowledge of crimes which were committed, then the Prosecution must bring forth exact proof in each case of his knowledge. In this case it must be pointed out that the statements of Kogon already give circumstances showing that knowledge cannot easily be expected. If this was not to be observed, then what during the trial before the IMT had become the fear of all persons acquainted with the Law would come true, namely, that through the declaration that the SS was a criminal organization everyone of its members was already from the very start condemned forever and without having been heard. However, the International Military Tribunal, as is evident from discussions during the first trial, has tried to avoid this.
I believe that these statements are necessary here in view of the summary of the opening speech of the Prosecution. Even when we are dealing with the facts which are filling every decent human being with horror, those, who are to pronounce the Law and want to find justice never must allow themselves to be influenced by indignation and pronounce a general judgment.
The individual case must always be examined, precisely and slowly, even though it may have a great and horrible connection.
The defendant Horst Klein was at the head of an office in the WVHA. His activity and the clubs under his direction and the convalescent homes however did not actually have anything to do with the real aims of the WVHA. The clubs and homes over which he presided could equally well have been administered outside of the WVHA by the general organization of the SS. They did not pursue any scientific but only ideal and beneficial aims. They had nothing to do with financing the SS and they were not industries which were operated for profits. No connection tied them with the unlawful treatment of the prisoners of war, with the euthanasia program, nor with any experiments. They were not aimed at making crimes against persons or the spoliation of their property possible. Their aim was not the establishment of concentration camps, to maintain them, nor to torture the persons confined in them nor to kill them. They did not deal with acts which were carried out by the state or the SS-agencies in countries outside of Germany against the citizens there and their property. Nobody can seriously claim, that these clubs and homes over which the defendant Klein was business manager, had in anyway facilitated the suppression and extermination of entire races. Already the affidavit which has been submitted by the defendant himself shows that his activity cannot be identified with the actual activity of the WVHA.
It is worthy of mentioning, that the sister of the defendant fell into the hands of the Gestapo and was sent to a concentration camp. Through the evidence arising out of the negotiations of the defendant I shall prove that the defendant did not know what fate was threatenin his own sister in a concentration camp. Thus it will become apparent that the defendant did not have any knowledge of the true character of the concentration camps.
A short time later he was then relieved of his work.
In repudiation of the Schwarz-affidavit, which has been presented I shall state that the defendant did not have anything directly to do with the construction works at Wewelsburg, and that the building administration was directly subordinated to the personal staff of Himmler and that the employment of concentration camp inmates at Wewelsburg was not in any way influenced by Klein. I shall state in particular that he did not have any authority over the camp at Wewelsburg. I shall prove that Klein did not know that prisoners at Wewelsburg died of starvation or malnutrition. Through further proof I shall clarify that the defendant within his work which actually was completely legal, always maintained a decent and correct attitude and that he tried to help everybody as far as he was able to do so. All this will show that Klein on observing the fundamental principles established by the Tribunal in the Milch trial cannot be held responsible for the crimes which have so deeply moved us here.
DR. GAWLIK (For defendant Leo Volk):
Defendant Volk has been indicted on all four counts of the indictment.
With regard to Count 1 of the Indictment, the Joint plot or conspiracy: The Prosecution maintains that Defendant Volk, together with the other defendants, participated in a conspiracy to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, in the sense of Control Council Law No. 10.
The deed of conspiracy first of all requires evidence to the effect that a joint plan or an agreement existed between Defendant Volk and at least one of the other defendants. The Prosecution apparently wishes to adduce proof of such a plan or agreement from the fact that Defendant Volk and the other defendants belonged to the SS-Main Economic and Administrative Office, WVHA, which was under the direction of Defendant Pohl. In refutation of this, I shall produce evidence that from Defendant Wolk's position within the WVHA, it cannot be inferred that he, together with one of the other defendants, agreed to a joint plan to commit war crimes or crimes against humanity.
In particular, I shall prove that this cannot be deduced from the fact that from the summer of 1942 on, Volk was characterized as the "personal adviser to the Chief of the Main Office" did not correspond to the actual scope of Defendant Volk's duties. In his capacity as personal Referent, Defendant Volk merely had to take care of the personal private affairs of Defendant Pohl. These affairs were connected neither with the economic plans nor with any one of Defendant Pohl's other duties in his capacity as Amtsgruppe Chief of the WVHA. Defendant Pohl did not initiate Defendant Volk into his sphere of duties as Main Office Chief especially not insofar as this activity extended to Concentration camps. From 1942 on, only Amtsgruppe D which had its own legal adviser, was the competent authority for concentration camps. Defendant Volk, therefore, did not concern himself with the legal affairs of concentration camps. Evan the fact that Defendant Volk was Prokurist for the Deutsche Wirtschaftsbetriebe (German Economic Enterprises) cannot be considered as participation in a conspiracy and cannot serve as ground for holding Defendant Volk responsible for war crimes or crimes against humanity in the event that such crimes should have been committed in an enterprise of the German economic enterprises.
I shall next discuss the legal nature of the German economic enterprises, which has up till now remained completely unclarified. In particular, I shall demonstrate that the German economic enterprises was merely a company for the administration of capital, which was created as a parent organization for numerous subsidiary companies. The subsidiary companies, insofar as they are of interest in this trial, had their own legal advisers. In his capacity as Prokurist for the German economic enterprises Defendant Volk's duty consisted merely in drawing up legal documents and contracts as well as conducting civil suits and the like. This is especially evinced in Document NO 1039, Volume XIV, Page 23, of the German Document Book.
Defendant Volk was not conversant with events within the individual plants.
Prior to the establishing of the WVHA Defendant Volk was employed in Main Department IIIA/4, as deputy for Defendant Bobermin.
The witness hearing which I am going to carry out on behalf of Defendant Bobermin will show that he
a) was not a participant in a conspiracy
b) committed no war crimes or crimes against humanity.
For this reason alone, therefore, criminal participation in a conspiracy for the perpetration of war crimes and crimes against humanity is precluded, as regards Defendant Volk's activity in Main Department IIIA/4.
Since, therefore, Defendant Volk was not a participant in a conspiracy, he accordingly cannot be brought to account for the actions of any of the other defendants. Rather, Defendant Volk can be held responsible only for such war crimes or crimes against humanity, which he himself is supposed to have committed.
With regard to Counts 2 and 3 of the indictment (War crimes and crimes against humanity:
With respect to Counts 2 and 3 of the indictment, I shall bring proof that Defendant Volk himself committed no war crimes or crimes against humanity whatsoever.
The Prosecution has listed the war crimes and the crimes against humanity, with which Defendant Volk is charged, under the following headings:
a) Crimes which were committed against prisoners in concentration camps.
b) Medical experiments.
c) Euthanasia - Action 14f13.
d) Systematic and ruthless extermination of the Jewish race.
e) Activities of the SS - Industry.
I shall arrange the evidence in accordance with this division.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
In re Point a) Crimes which were committed in concentration camps.
The Prosecution has itself asserted that until March 1942, the Concentration Camps were under the Inspector of Concentration Camps and that after this period they were under Amtsgruppe D of the WVHA. Defendant Volk never belonged to either one of these two offices. Furthermore, he never assisted these two offices through his own activity. Defendant Volk was also unaware of the fact that any crimes were committed in the concentration camps.
Similarly, Defendant Volk took no part whatsoever in the erection of concentration camps, or in particular the acquisition of land for concentration camps. This applies also to the acquisition of land in Stutthof. In this connection, the Prosecution has overlooked the fact that the concentration camp in Stutthof was erected in 1940-at a time, that is, when the concentration camps were still under the Inspector of Concentration Camps and Staff W was not yet in existence at all.
The negotiations which, according to Documents NO-2133 and NO-2159, Volume XIV, pages 35 and 37 of the German Document Book, were carried on by Defendant Volk, and were not connected with the acquisition of land for the Stutthof Concentration Camp, as the Prosecution erroneously assumes, but with land for the erection of a settlement. Defendant Volk took part in these negotiations as manager of the Gemeinnuetzige Wohnungs-und Heimstaetten, GmBH. From this fact it follows beyond all doubt, that the negotiations carried on by Defendant Volk could not have been connected with the land for the Concentration Camp. For only the German Reich could have acquired the land for the concentration camps; not, however, the Gemeinnuetzige Wohnungs-und Heimstaetten GmBH.
As I shall demonstrate, Document NO-2133 submitted by the Prosecution under Documentary Evidence 387, and Document 2159, under Documentary Evidence 388 (Volume III, Pages 35 and 37 of the German Document Book) do not reproduce the facts of the case accurately. This Court No. II, Case No. 4.is at once shown by a comparison with Document NO-2147, Volume II, Page 58 to 3 of the German Document Book.
According to Document NO-2327 (Volume III, Page 122 of the German Document Book) Pister, former commandant of the Buchenwald Camp, has testified that Defendant Volk took part in conferences of the Camp commanders at Defendant Pohl's. In this connection, I shall prove that Defendant Volk was merely present once, for a short while, at a meeting of the camp commanders; that he did not, however, participate in the actual discussions of the commanders. As long as Defendant Volk was present no matters pertaining to the Concentration Camps were discussed. The subject of the conference was always kept strictly secret. From the fact that the Defendant Volk was present at the conference for a short while, it cannot be inferred that Defendant Volk learned the subject of the conference.
Defendant Volk never visited a concentration camp. The general prohibition concerning the entering of concentration camps applied to him as well. As regards Document NO-1030 (Volume III, Page 47 of the German Document Book), I shall prove that Defendant Volk did not visit the Protective Custody Camp at Flossenbuerg, but merely a plant of the DEST in the locality of Flossenbuerg. This plant, which was quite separate from the protective custody camp, produced airplane parts for the Messerschmidt Works. The visit at this plant lasted only a short time. From the inspection of this plant it was in no way possible to gain the impression that any kind of war crimes or crimes against humanity were being committed in the Flossenbuerg Protective Custody Camp. During this visit, Defendant Volk did not enter either the Protective Custody Camp nor the stone quarry.
In re Points b) and c) Medical experiments - Euthanasia Action 14F13 Defendant Volk in no way took part in the medical experiments in concentration camps or in the so-called Euthanasia Program 14F13.
The Prosecution has presented nothing on this score. At the reading of the Indictment, Defendant Volk was not even mentioned in Court No. II, Case No. 4.these counts of the Indictment.
As regards this count, I shall, therefore, confine myself to furnishing proof that Defendant Volk knew nothing of the medical experiments and of the Euthanasia Program 14F13. Essential in this connection appears to me the fact that the secrecy of these matters was highly safeguarded. Therefore, only those persons actually engaged in them were informed of medical experiments and the so-called Euthanasia Program 14F13.
In re Point d) Systematic and ruthless annihilation of the Jewish People Regarding the count of the Indictment "Destruction of the Jews", Defendant Volk is first of all accused of partaking in the action Reinhardt and of having known about these measures.
The Prosecution has stated that the action Reinhardt consisted of the following measures:
a) deportation of the Jews,
b) exploitation of the personal property of the Jews,
c) exploitation of Jewish manpower and industrial equipment.
Defendant Volk partook in none of these measures. Nor - as I shall prove it - did he know of them in spite of his position as personal advisor to Defendant Pohl, for these measures too were kept strictly secret.
Defendant Volk has never worked at the Eastern Industries Ltd. (Ost-Industrie GmbH) generally called Osti, nor has he supported this Company in any respect.
In this connection, the prosecution of the legal position of the Osti will be of special consequence. As to this I shall prove that the Osti was not subordinated to Staff W. It was purely a Reich company and as such did not belong to the DWB (German Economic Enterprises, Ltd.) concern. It was not even connected with the DWB by any organ-contract. There has never been a member of the Staff W on its board of supervisors; therefore, Staff W could not have had any influence Court No. II, Case No. 4.on the Osti.
From Document No. NO-1255 (German Document Book Volume XIX, Page 9), submitted by the Prosecution, can be seen that Defendant Volk has not assisted in drafting the articles of incorporation. The aims of the Osti, as stated by the Prosecution, were unknown to Defendant Volk. According to Document NO-1270 (Volume III, Page 73 of the German Document Book), submitted by the Prosecution, Defendant Volk was present at a conference on 13 February 1943, at which matters of the Osti were down for discussion. It will be proved that Defendant Volk was not present right from the beginning of the meeting. Besides, on this occasion there was no detailed discussion of the activities of the Osti. The entire meeting lasted only 10 minutes. Horn merely put some questions which were of no interest to Defendant Volk and which gave him no indication of the tasks of the Osti. After the first few questions Pohl broke off the discussion and advised Horn to get his information from the people on the spot.
When using this document it must further be considered that this meeting happened shortly before the foundation of the Osti, which took place in March 1943, and that at that time the future designs of the Osti were not yet discernible for Defendant Volk.
The Prosecution has further stated that in January 1944 Defendant Volk participated in an attempt to make the Ghetto at Lodz into a concentration camp in order to obtain in this way the Ghetto together with its industrial plants and 80,000 Jews for the Osti.
I shall disprove this assertion of the Prosecution. In this connection I shall prove particularly that Himmler, by decree of 11 June 1943, Document No. NO-519 (German Document Book Vol. XIX, Page 49) has ordered the transformation of the Ghetto at Lodz into a concentration camp. In this decision of Himmler's, Defendant Volk took no part whatsoever. In consequence of the order there ensued negotiations with the representative of Gauleiter Greiser, then in office. Defendant Volk participated in these negotiations. He thereupon was instrumental in the cancellation of Himmler's order insofar as he Court No. II, Case No. 4.dissuaded Defendant Pohl to take over the Lodz Ghetto.
This is particularly obvious from Greiser's letter to Pohl of 14 February 1944, Document No. NO-519 (German Document Book Vol. XIX, Page 44). This letter explicitly states that Defendant Volk opposed the transformation of the Ghetto into a concentration camp.
Of the measures taken against Jews, mentioned in the letter of 14 February 1944, Defendant Volk has learned only in the course of this trial. From the original of this document, it is evident that Defendant Volk never saw this letter and was not informed of its contents.
In re Point e) Activities in the SS-Industry Regarding the point "Slave Labor", the Prosecution has stated that Defendant Volk, like some other defendants, had achieved mastership in this respect.
However, the evidence collected by the Prosecution has not produced the slightest indication of this. The Prosecution declared only in general, without producing the evidence, that Amtsgruppe W, under the direction of the President Pohl, Georg Loerner, Baier, Volk and Mummenthey, employed prisoners on a large scale and under most barbarious conditions in the factories of their department. However, individual facts and circumstances have not been produced to show that Volk took part in such measures. Therefore, it must be concluded that Volk is made responsible for those measures solely because he belonged to Staff W. It shows that the position of Staff W is not correctly judged by the Prosecution. Therefore, I shall prove that Staff W could not give orders of any kind to the companies incorporated in the DEW. Staff W had no directive powers, but only advisory functions. In this respect the memorandum, Document No. NO1016 (Vol. II, Page 123 of the German Document Book) represents the facts incorrectly. When judging the attitude of Defendant Volk, it will further be of importance to remember that he did not compose this memorandum.
Besides, Defendant Volk has never been the chief of Staff W, Court No. II, Case No. 4.but only the manager of the legal department.
In this capacity he had nothing to do with the companies employing inmates of concentration camps; they had their own legal departments.
I shall also prove that the activities of Defendant Volk in Amtsgruppe W were not directed towards
a) exploiting and destroying so-called inferior people, and
b) plundering valuable industries in the occupied territories by means of expropriation.
Neither did he know that such aims were pursued through the SS-industries. In no way did Staff W cooperate with Amtsgruppe D in order to obtain landed property for concentration camps. As far as in this connection Defendant Volk is charged with negotiating the acquisition of real estate in Stutthof, I have already made my comments.
The activities of Defendant Volk as manager of the Cooperative House and Homebuilding Limited (Gemeinnuetzige Wohnungs-und Heimstaetten G.m.b.H.) were not directed towards plundering Jewish property. All acquisitions of real estate had already been effected when he became the manager of this enterprise. During his stay in this company, no real estate belonging to Jews was acquired.
In Re Count 4 of Indictment (Membership in Criminal Organizations).
From November 1933 until January 1940, the defendant Volk was a member of the Reiter-SS. By verdict of the IMT, the Reiter-SS has been expressly excepted from that category of SS-members who were declared criminal.
In January 1940, the defendant Volk was recruited into the Waffen-SS and assigned to Amt III A/4. Therefore, his membership in the Waffen- SS was not voluntary but it can be attributable to a lawful decree. Thus, as far as his membership in the Waffen-SS after January 1940 is concerned, the defendant Volk belongs to that category of persons who were declared not criminal by verdict of the IMT.
The employment contact with the German Economic Enterprise, Ltd., (DWB), Document No. NO-2163 (German Document Book Vol. XIV, Pages 76, 79, ) which the Prosecution has submitted, is entirely without significance for the judging of the question whether the defendant Volk belonged to an organization that has been declared criminal; an employment contract with the DWB proves neither a membership in the SS not an official rank or office within the SS. The DWB was a private enterprise under civil law. The signing of an employment contract must therefore be considered in the same way legally as the signing of an employment contract with any other private company.
Apart from this the defendant Volk would anyway not come into the category of persons declared criminal by verdict of the IMT, because, as I shall prove, he a) did not know that the SS was being used for committing criminal acts; and b) did not himself take part in any crime.
The defendant Bobermin is charged with crimes against all four counts of the indictment.
To Count 1 of the Indictment: The Conspiracy Charge:
On the charge of conspiracy I shall prove that the defendant Bobermin did not enter into any common plan or agreement in conjunction with the other defendants or any other persons for the commission of War Crimes or Crimes against Humanity.
Office W2, directed by the defendant Dr. Bobermin, had no joint tasks with the other offices of the WVHA.
Office W2 had a special problem, entirely separate from the other offices, which I shall present in detail in my presentation of evidence. Herewith I shall prove especially that it was not, as the prosecution has stated, the aim and object of the Office W2 directed by the defendant Bobermin to finance the SS or to support the other offices of the WVHA in any other manner.
Furthermore, it is not true that, as the prosecution has stated, the activities of Office W2 consisted of maintaining concentration camps and of utilizing manpower.
The same is also true of the activities of the defendant Bobermin in Office III A/4 before the foundation of the WVHA.
As, then, there is no question of the defendant's participation in a conspiracy, he cannot be held responsible for the actions of the other defendants. He can only be made responsible for War Crimes or Crimes against Humanity, if it can be proven that he himself committed such crimes.
To Counts 2 and 3 of the Indictment (War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity):
In this connection, I shall bring proof that the defendant Bobermin himself committed no War Crimes or Crimes against Humanity not did he participate in them. I shall use the construction of the indictment as a basis for my presentation of evidence.
To Count (a) Crimes committed in the Concentration Camps:
The prosecution has stated that up to March 1942 the Inspector of the Concentration Camps, and after that time Amtsgurppe D, was in charge of the direct administration of the Concentration Camps. From this it is evident that these offices are responsible for this part of the SS activities.
According to its own statement the prosecution has already freed the defendant Bobermin from responsibility for the crimes which were alleged to have been committed in the Concentration Camps. To this I shall bring evidence which will show that Office W2, which was directed by the defendant Bobermin, had nothing to do with the administration of the Concentration Camps, in particular that Office W2 did not have the task of supporting Amtsgruppe D in any way in the administration of the Concentration Camps and that the defendant Bobermin did not and could not have had any knowledge of the crimes committed in the Concentration Camps.
The defendant Bobermin has never inspected a Concentration Camp. My evidence will, amongst other things, refute in the case of Office W2 the prosecution's statement that every office of Amtsgruppe W had a deputy in the concentration camps, and that there was a close connection between the industries controlled by Office W2 and the administration of the concentration camps.
In (b) and (c): Medical experiments and euthanasia action 14f13.
The prosecution has produced no facts to show that the defendant Bobermin was connected in any way with the medical experiments in concentration camps and with the so-called euthanasia program. I shall, therefore, confine my evidence to proving that the defendant Bobermin had no knowledge of these measures.
The affairs in question were kept strictly secret in accordance with the existing regulations and those persons not directly concerned knew nothing about them.
In (d): Systematical and merciless extermination of the Jews.
The defendant Bobermin did not participate in the extermination of the Jews.
He had no knowledge of these measures.
The measures carried out by the chief of the security police under the title "Final solution of the Jewish problem" were kept extremely secret. The defendant Bobermin did not belong to that circle of people who knew of these measures. Neither did the defendant Bobermin know anything about the activities of the task forces in the East. The extermination camps of Auschwitz, Treblinka, Majdanek, Blezec and Sobibor, mentioned in the opening statement, were never visited by the defendant.
Himmler's speech of 4 October 1943 in Posen, mentioned by the prosecution, was delivered to SS-Gruppenfuehrers.
The defendant Bobermin was of a considerably lower rank and was not present at this meeting.
The defendant Bobermin also took no part in the administration of Jewish property. The prosecution document No. 1050 (German document book, volume XVI page 63) merely shows that a loan of 1,200,000 zloty was made available by an office of the SS and police chief in the Lublin district to the Klinker-Cememt G.M.B.H., which was directed by the defendant Bobermin, and that the defendant Bobermin was requested to repay this amount to the WVHA. The defendant Bobermin did not know the origin of the money when he borrowed this credit. The administrative officer Wippern, with the SS and Police Chief in Lublin, did not even tell the defendant Bobermin that this money came from the Reinhardt fund.
The defendant Bobermin heard of the Reinhardt fund for the first time in document No. 1015 without knowing where the money came from. The action Reinhardt was top secret, and according to the existing regulations was known only to those people immediately connected with its execution.
In (e): Slave Labor.
The charge of having employed a large number of inmates under inhuman conditions on armaments production in the factories belonging to his office, was not brought against the defendant Bobermin. The prosecution merely stated that in one of the over 300 plants directed by the defendant Bobermin, concentration camp inmates were employed; this was in the Golleschauer Portland Cement Factory A.G. But the prosecution did not state that in Golleschau the inmates were treated in any way which could be described as criminal. The defendant Bobermin also has no knowledge of such occurrences. In addition, I shall prove that the accommodation, food and treatment of the inmates in Golleschau was irreproachable.
The defendant Bobermin visited the camp at Golleschau on 2 or 3 occasions.