A I know nothing about that.
Q Do you know whether Dr. Volk ever visited a protective custody camp?
A I don't know.
Q Was Dr. Volk subject to the internal order not to enter a concentration camp?
A Of course. He had to have permission as anybody else did.
Q Did you at any time give Dr. Volk permission to visit a protective custody camp?
A If I remember now he did not ask me for one.
Q I shall have Document NO-1030 handed to you from Document Book 3, on page 74 of the German text. This is a letter from Mummenthey to SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Koegl. The letter is dated 1 July 1943. Did you give permission to Dr. Volk to enter the protective custody camp at Fiossenburg?
A I do not recall the instance, nor do I remember that he or Mummenthey informed me of this trip at the time.
Q Can you then comment on the question wherein that Dr. Volk had the facilities for actually entering a protective custody camp?
A The facilities would exist if he somehow or other got the permission.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: All persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats. Tribunal II is again in session.
EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Witness, did you tell the defendant Dr. Volk about the conditions which prevailed in the concentration camps?
A No.
Q Did the defendant Dr. Volk ever participate in the commander's conferences ?
A No.
Q Witness, I now hand you Document NO-2327, which is in German Document Book 3, page 122. It is an affidavit of Pister. He was the last commander of the concentration camp Buchenwald. In this affidavit Pister stated that the defendant Dr. Volk had participated in the concentration camp commander conferences. Will you please state to us your point of view with regard to this statement?
A In this case, the case of Volk, this can only be his participation in the final dinner at night, which took place in the evening before the conference was started. I am firmly convinced that Volk did not participate in any conference at Oranienburg.
Q I think you have already stated that these conferences took place at Oranienburg? Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Where did this dinner take place?
A Sometimes it took place in Berlin. Whenever it was held at Oranienburg, I always went out there myself.
JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q Who attended these dinners?
A Whenever the dinner was held at Berlin, then members of the WVHAwould also participate; but there were not certain members who participated. They were not previously invited. Whenever I went out to Oranienburg, I went by myself. I never took anybody along. The supper took place at the officers' mess.
Q Just tell me who attended the meetings that you are talking about. I don't care where it took place. Who attended it? Who was there ?
AA distinction must be made, your Honor, between the actual conferences where only official concentration camp matters were discussed. These conferences took place only at Oranienburg under the direction of Gluecks. This supper in the evening or the evening before, which took place several times at Berlin or at Oranienburg had nothing whatsoever to do with this conference. I always participated at the supper at Berlin as did members of the WVHA also because it was the supper which was served anyhow at the officers' mess. Of course, after such a long period of time has passed, I cannot remember the names of all the participants anymore. No special register of participants had been fixed. The supper was served at the officers' mess, and the commanders came there also. Therefore, it was not a restricted company.
Q I didn't ask you for any of that, witness. I just asked you to tell me who attended these meetings. Now, give me the best of your recollection as to the names of the people who were there; whether any of these defendants were there. That's what we are interested in.
A I cannot recall the names anymore. I know for certain that my adjutant was there.
Q Who was that? You don't remember his name either?
A My last adjutant was Schiller. I wanted to say that I changed my adjutants frequently; but my last adjutant was Hauptsturmfuehrer Schiller. He came along. Well, I cannot give you the individual names for the various occasions. But, as I have already said, supper -
Q Just a minute. I'm not asking you for the individual names on individual occasions. Give us the names of any of the defendants here in the dock that were there at any time, if any of them were there.
A I cannot give you those names. I do not know if any of the defendants participated in any of these suppers because for the most part they were not even in the house; the offices were distributed all over Berlin.
Only those persons participated who were in that building; they were the only ones who participated. In detail I cannot say anymore today. I cannot give you any names with certainty.
Q Of all of these meetings you can't give us the name of a single person who was there at any time except you adjutant?
A I cannot say today with certainty that this or that person participated. I am unable to do that.
Q You are unable to give us the name of anyone who was there on any occasion, not on any particular date but any occasion?
A I cannot name any of the defendants with certainty.
Q All right, go ahead.
Q. I now come to the medical experiments in the Euthanasia program which has been mentioned in the indictment. Did the defendant Dr. Volk participate in the planning or the execution of medical experiments, including the sterilization and castration in concentration camps?
A. He had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Q. Did the defendant Dr. Volk ever order the transfer of prisoners for this type of experiment?
A. No.
Q. Did the defendant Dr. Volk ever participate in the transfer of prisoners for this type of experiments?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever discuss such experiments with the defendant Dr. Volk?
A. No.
Q. You have already stated that these experiments were carried out under the utmost secrecy. Is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Did the defendant Dr. Volk belong to these circles of persons who had to have knowledge of these experiments?
A. No, he was not a member of that group.
Q. Did the defendant Dr. Volk have anything to do with the planning or the execution of the Euthanasia program?
A. He had nothing to do with it.
Q. Did you ever discuss the so-called Euthanasia program with the defendant Dr. Volk?
A. No.
Q. I now come to the extermination of the Jews which has been mentioned in the indictment. Did you ever discuss the extermination of the Jews with the defendant Dr. Volk?
Q. Did the members of Amtsgruppe W participate in the measures which were considered as a final solution of the Jewish question, and did they participate in that in any way?
A. The Amtsgruppe W had nothing to do with it.
Q. Did you ever discuss with the defendant Dr. Volk the Posen speech by Himmler?
A. No.
Q. Can you make a statement of whether the defendant Dr. Volk at the meeting at Posen obtained knowledge from another person who attended there of this speech of Himmler's?
A. I consider that as highly improbable.
Q. The Action Reinhardt has already been discussed here. Did the execution of the credit negotiations, with regard to the Action Reinhardt, come under the tasks and the activities of the defendant Dr. Volk?
A. No.
Q. Did the defendant Dr. Volk participate in anyway in these loan negotiations?
A. I once asked the question of negotiating a loan from the Reich with him, but only with regard to the legal aspects of this questions. I still remember that at the time he pointed out to me that the conclusion of an agreement without consulting the Reich Ministry of Finance was impossible, because I was unable to give credits and to make a loan in the same person. He did not have any other contacts with this question.
Q. In the course of this discussion, did you tell the defendant Dr. Volk that this was a credit from the Reinhardt Fund?
A. No. At that time it was till a general loan from the Reich. It was not fixed at that time what funds were to be used for this loan. That was shown later on. This became evident later.
Q. Have I understood you correctly, witness, that the conversation was as follows: You only asked the defendant Dr. Volk in general whether the Reich wanted to give the DWB concern a loan. Is that correct?
A. Yes, at the time I only thought of a loan from the Reich, and I wanted to achieve this by means of an agreement was what I discussed with Volk; nothing else was discussed at the time.
Q. On another occasion did you inform the defendant Dr. Volk about the action Reinhardt?
A. No, I had no reason to do so.
Q. You have already stated here, witness, that the Reinhardt action was classified as Top Secret. Is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Did the defendant Dr. Volk belong to the group of persons who were to be informed about this Action within the framework of the secrecy?
A. No, he was not to be informed of this Action.
Q. I then have several questions with regard to the complex of the Osti. Is it correct, witness, that the Osti was a purely independent company of the Reich?
A. Yes, that is correct. It was a company which was owned by the Reich.
Q. And who were the directors of the Osti?
A. The directors were Globocnik and Dr. Horn.
Q. Were these two persons members of the Amtsgruppe W?
A. No.
Q. Do you know, witness, who concluded the notary agreement regarding the Osti?
A. This contract was concluded at the time by Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Schneider.
Q. Did the defendant Dr. Volk participate in the conclusion of this contract? Did he participate in that in any way?
A. I do not think so.
Q. I now hand to you on this subject Document NO-1265. It is in Document Book 19, on page 9, and is Exhibit 482. I now submit this document to you, and I want to ask you the following question. Does this document show that the defendant Volk could have participated in the conclusion of this contract? Does it show that it could have participated in this contract? It is Document NO-1265-
MR. ROBBINS: I object to the question put to the witness. I think in the first place the document speaks for itself and it is a purely argumentative question.
DR. GAWLIK: May I say something in that respect, Your Honors. I have handed the witness this document in order to refresh his memory with regard to my last question.
THE PRESIDENT: The trouble is with your question. The Court can answer the question just as well as the witness by simply reading the document, we can read. We know what it says.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honors, I withdraw the question.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. In what capacity did the defendant Volk participate in the preliminary discussion with regard to the Osti?
A. I consulted Volk at the time with regard to the legal which were being discussed.
Q. Did the defendant Dr. Volk participate in the conference and in the discussions there?
A. The whole discussion was only very short. It lasted only for about a minute. I cannot recall if Volk participated in it because no fundamental questions were discussed at that time. I interrupted this discussion after a short time and I ordered Horn to first of all obtain information at Lublin about the conditions which prevailed there.
Q. Were copies of the questionnaire which Dr. Horn composed distributed to all the persons participating in this conference?
A. I do not know that anymore.
Q. On the occasion of this conference, were the aims, tasks and activities of the Osti discussed?
A. I have already stated that this conference lasted only a short time and that no fundamental discussions of the questions took place.
Q. I now come to the Count of the indictment referring to slave labor.
Was it part of the tasks of the defendant Dr. Volk to participate in the planning and execution of plans which were to serve the supply of factories with labor, and the assignment of concentration camp prisoners?
A. No, I carried out this work by myself.
Q. Did Staff W have any influence on the management of the plants which were under the DWB?
A. No.
Q. I now hand to you Document NO-1016. It is in Document Book II, on page 123. Does this memorandum show the relationship of Staff W to the plants affiliated with the DWB?
A. The document applies in no case 100 - because this memorandum only served as an orientation before circles which actually were not otherwise interested in the DWB.
Q. Did Defendant Dr. Volk compile this memorandum. Can you answer this question, please?
A. I can not say that exactly. It could also have been compiled by another member of Staff W. I might assume that it came from Dr. Hoffmann, but I do not know exactly.
Q. Who ordered the employment of prisoners in the plants which were affiliated with the DWB?
A. I did that.
Q. Who regulated the working conditions?
A. The plants' directors and foremen.
Q. Who was responsible for the billeting of these prisoners?
A. These prisoners were always billeted in the camp, and therefore the camp commander remained responsible for their billeting. That is to say, when the plants were located some distance away, special labor camps may have been established. However, at the moment I can not recall where this actually happened.
Q. Did you discuss with the defendant Dr. Volk if he made use of prisoners in the W plants?
A. Volk had nothing to do with the utilization of the prisoners in the W plants and, consequently, I did not discuss it with him. I only negotiated with Gluecks and Maurer about the allocation of labor.
Q. Can you make a statement on the question whether the defendant Volk ever obtained knowledge about any allocation of prisoners in the plants of the DWB, or if he ever handled these matters?
A. No, I am unable to make a statement on that question, I do not believe that he handled this work. However, I am not sure about it.
Q. Is it therefore correct to say, to describe the defendant Dr. Volk, as a master in the allocation of slave labor on the slave market?
A. He was unable, on the basis of his activity, to do this, and according to his soft character he was the most unsuitable person for it. Too effeminate.
Q. Did the defendant Dr. Volk have any influence on the salary paid to prisoners?
A. That did not come within his sphere of work.
Q. Did the defendant Dr. Volk have anything to do with the allocation of labor of prisoners of war?
A. No.
Q. Was it part of the aims and the tasks of Amtsgruppe W to supervise the deportation of inhabitants of the occupied territories, and to order their transfer to the Reich?
A. No, that did not have anything to do with it.
Q. Did Amtsgruppe W ever give such orders?
A. No.
Q. I now come to the count of the indictment referring to the SS industries. Was it part of the work of the defendant Dr. Volk to find ways and means for the financing of the SS aims, and to apply them?
A. That was out of the question because the SS was financed by the Reich and/or the Party and received 100 support from them.
Q. Did Amt W, or the DWB, have the task of financing them?
A. No, that was impossible. That was not necessary.
Q. If Amtsgruppe W turned over any industries to the DWB or to its affiliated companies, did they confiscate any plants in the occupied territories?
A. No.
Q. Could the Amtsgruppe W, or its affiliated plants, carry out such confiscations?
A. It was quite possible because the WVHA did not have the necessary authority to do that.
Q. Who was competent for the confiscation and expropriation?
A. Only the state authorities in the occupied territories.
Q. Did the defendant Dr. Volk ever make any suggestions to you for the expropriation of properties in the territories which were occupied by Germany?
A. I cannot remember that.
Q. What was the assignment of the Gemeinnuetzige Wohnungsbau Gesellschaft -- Construction Company?
A. This company was to establish building for the employees.
Q. Was this company founded for the purpose of purchasing the property of Jewish owners?
A. No, it did not have this task.
Q. Did the defendant Dr. Volk ever achieve an order from you that the Gemeinnuetzige Construction Company was not allowed to purchase any property from Jewish owners?
A. I cannot remember such an order, but that was the basic procedure. I do not know of any case that this company had ever purchased Jewish properties; however, I may be mistaken. I am not quite certain on the subject.
Q. I now come to the court referring to membership in criminal organizations. Was the defendant Dr. Volk official SS leader in the Main Office?
A. No.
Q. What effects did the contracts have which were made by Dr. Volk with the DWB in his position in the SS?
A. Those contracts affected his position as SS leader, but not affect -- (interruption)-
INTERPRETER: There is a correction to be made here. The question asked by counsel was: Q.Was the defendant Dr. Volk's position as SS leader, an official position or only an honorary position?
JUDGE MUSMANNO: And what was the answer?
A. (By the witness) I have stated that this contract did not have any influence on his position as an SS leader.
DR. GAWLIK: I will repeat this question.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Was Dr. Volk an official SS leader in the Main Office?
A. No, he did not have that position.
Q. What effects did the employment agreement have which Dr. Volk concluded with the DWB in his position in the SS?
A. None at all.
Q. Witness, in the course of your examination the Estate of Boelson in Styria has been mentioned. What do you know about the negotiations which Dr. Volk carried out about the purchase of this estate?
A. I do not know of any details on the subject. I can only remember that the RSHA made some difficulties in the execution of these negotiations. However, I do not know in what direction these complications were.
Q. To whom did this estate belong?
A. It belonged to a certain Mrs. Hoffman.
Q. Was she a Jewess who had emigrated?
A. Yes, I believe so. I believe that she resided in Switzerland.
Q. Were the difficulties which the RSHA made ... did the RSHA want to expropriate this estate?
A. Yes, that is possible. I believe that they did not want us to purchase this estate. However, I do not know any details.
Q. Do you remember, witness, that Dr. Volk, in order to prevent this expropriation, made the suggestion that the estate should be purchased in a free sale?
MR. ROBBINS: I object to this leading of the witness. The witness has already said that he does not remember the details of the transaction, and there is no account for trying to give him the answer.
DR. GAWLIK: May I make a statement with regard to this matter, your Honor. In my question I refer to the statement, in the well-known American book by Wharton -- W-h-a-r-t-o-n. It is entitled, "Evidence in Criminal Cases". On Page 2169, in Volume 3 of this book, it is stated that every defendant is entitled to take a co-defendant into cross examination, and in the cross examination leading questions are permissible. It is pointed out that leading questions are also permissible in direct examination if they serve to refresh the memory of the witness. That is stated on page 2135 in Volume 3 of this book.
THE PRESIDENT: You have just touched on the right point. When the witness testifies that he does not remember, you may refresh his recollection by asking him whether or not the fact is true. I don't think you violated the rule in the present instance --
I am ruling with you, Dr. Gawlik.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Witness, can you answer this question? Please repeat the answer --- I will repeat the question: I want to recall to you that the defendant Dr. Volk, in order to prevent the expropriation by the RSHA, made the suggestion to purchase this estate through voluntary sale?
A. I only know that the estate afterwards was actually purchased through a voluntary sale. That was the opinion to which Dr. Volk adhered. It was contrary to that of the RSHA.
MR. ROBBINS: May I ask counsel the purpose of this line of inquiry, and how it is relevant to the issues in this case. The fact that a specific piece of property, one individual item of property, was sold at a voluntary sale. I don't know. Maybe it is relevant. I would like to know what he is aiming at.
DR. GAWLIK: I want to show -- as is stated in the American law, "the good character" of the defendant Dr. Volk, and in general his attitude towards the Jews.
THE I RESIDENT: Your purpose, then, is to show that he, the defendant, advised against confiscation -- counseled a voluntary purchase?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes. And to what extent it can be believed that he committed these actions as have been charged by the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: That would seem to be a legitimate purpose, Mr. Robbins, to show that the defendant was in favor of compensation and voluntary purchase, as against confiscation, at least in one instance.
MR. ROBBINS: I withdraw the abjection, your Honor. I think it has very slight relevance, but perhaps it has some.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Witness, is it correct, if I summarize with regard to this point --- that through the intervention of the defendant Dr. Volk the measures of the RSHA were prevented.
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. I will now ask some questions with regard to the defendant Bobermin, whom I represent.
Since when did the defendant Dr. Bobermin belong to the agencies which were subordinated to you?
A. Approximately since 1940.
Q. And of what agency was he a member?
A. He was at that time a member of the Office Salpeter. I believe that was Office Amt III-A.
Q. How did the defendant Dr. Bobermin come into that agency?
A. He was conscripted into the Waffen-SS as a result of the outbreak of the war.
Q. Is it therefore correct that the defendant Dr. Bobermin did not join this agency voluntarily, but on the basis of a legal order?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. What tasks, and what activities, did the defendant Bobermin carry out at Amt III A IV?
A. He was to carry out the commercial and trustee administration of the general trusteeship of the Eastern Brick Works.
Q. At first, was he able to issue independent orders and carry out independent measures?
A. No, he was submitted to the Amtschief of the Office of Dr. Salpeter, and he had to adhere to the latter's instructions.
Q. Did the defendant Dr. Bobermin have the possibility, during that time, to prevent any measures or orders by Dr. Salpeter?
A. No, because he was subordinated to him.
MR. ROBBINS: May I call the Court's attention to the fact that counsel is questioning about III A IV, which is not shown on this chart. It was a predecessor of the WVHA. I notice the Tribunal is looking for it on this chart. It is on one of the earlier charts, in Book II.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Was it the task of the Main Departments, III A IV --- was it completely different from the remaining departments of Office III A?
A. The Department which Bobermin developed at that time was only temporarily incorporated into Amt III A because it actually was not a part of it, became the Eastern Brick Works, did not belong to the economic enterprises which were incorporated in Office III A.
Q. Did the Main Department III A IV have to support the other departments of Amt III A?
A. No, I only stated that it was very temporarily -- but actually had nothing to do with the remaining departments and main departments of this Amt.
Q. Where was the Main Department III A IV located?
A. It was located first at Berlin, but a short time later it was transferred to Posen.
Q. Do you know when it was transferred to Posen?
A. I can not give you the date any more.
Q. When was the Amt W 2 established?
A. In 1942. I believe at the same time as Amtsgruppe W.
Q. Did the tasks and activities of Amt W II vary from the tasks and assignments of Amt III A IV?
A. No, they had the same tasks.
Q. Did meetings of all the directors of the Main Office Administration and Economics take place and of the later WVHA?
A. Meetings took place occasionally at social functions, but there were none otherwise.
Q. Did these meetings take place on very rare occasions?
A. Yes, they were exceptions.
Q. If I tell you that this happened once or twice perhaps, can you give a statement on that?
A. I cannot recall that any more today.
Q. What was the subject of your discussion with Bobermin whenever you met him. I am referring to the official discussions.
A. I primarily discussed with Bobermin the measures which were to be taken in the plants, the measures which had to be carried out in the Eastern Brick Works, and which were aimed at again bringing these plants into production and to increase their production?
Q. Were details of the activities of the defendant Bobermin discussed here, or were only general directives agreed upon?
A. I mostly limited myself to general directives which became evidence from the reports which were submitted to me by Bobermin.
Q. Can, therefore, the defendant Bobermin be described as chief of the Amt III A IV, and later on the Main Office W II; and did he have any extensive independence?
A. Yes, he had to have this independence because he, firstly, was not located in Berlin but at Posen, and from this arose the necessity that I had to give him a larger part of independence than was usual with agencies at Berlin. Furthermore, this field of work included plants numbering about three hundred to four hundred. In there I could not always give them detailed instructions. He had a large amount of independence in that field.
Q. I now come to the court of the indictment dealing with concentration camps.
Was it part of the tasks of the defendant Bobermin to establish concentration camps, and labor camps, to maintain them, or to operate them?
A. No.
Q Did the defendant, Dr. Bobermin, carry out such an activity?
A No.
Q Did an exchange of letters and files take place between Amtsgruppe W and Amt W-II?
A No.
Q Did the general prohibition for entering concentration camps apply to the defendant, Dr. Bobermin?
A Yes.
Q Did you ever give such a permission to the defendant, Dr. Bobermin to enter the concentration camp?
A I can not recall that.
Q Can you make a statement on the question whether the defendant, Dr. Bobermin, by virtue of his official activities had any knowledge of the conditions within the concentration camps?
A He hardly could to that by virtue of his official position because in the field in which he was active there were no concentration camps with the exception of Golleschau. It was the only one which was there, but the remaining 300 to 400 plants were far located from each other in the Warthe District and in the East, and at that time no concentration camps were located in these areas.
Q Did you ever discuss with the defendant, Dr. Bobermin, the conditions in the concentration camps ?
A No, I can not recall that I ever did that.
Q Did the defendant, Dr. Bobermin, belong to the group of persons which attended the commanders' meetings?
A No.
Q Was the defendant, Dr. Bobermin, ever together with you when you visited the concentration camp Auschwitz?
A No.
Q Is it, therefore, correct that the defendant, Dr. Bobermin, has inspected the gas chambers at Auschwitz together with you?
A No, that is not correct.
Q Did the office W-II have a representative in the concentration camps?
A No.
Q I now come to the count of the indictment dealing with the medical experiments and euthanasia. Did the defendant, Dr. Bobermin, participate in the planning or the execution of medical experiments in the concentration camps?
A He had nothing to do with it.
Q Did the defendant, Dr. Bobermin, participate in the commitment of prisoners for these purposes?
A No.
Q Did you discuss with the defendant, Dr. Bobermin, on any occasion these experiments?
A No.
Q It has already been mentioned here that these experiments were carried out under the utmost secrecy. Did the defendant, Dr. Bobermin, belong to the group of persons which according to the secrecy provisions was informed or was to be informed of these experiments?
A No, he was not a member of that group of persons.
Q Did the defendant, Dr. Bobermin, have anything to do with the planning and execution of the so-called "Euthanasia Program" at the concentration camps?
A No.
Q Did you ever discuss with the defendant, Dr. Bobermin, this Euthanasia Program?
A No.
Q I now come to the count of the indictment dealing with the action against the Jews. Was the defendant, Dr. Bobermin, present when Himmler made his speech at Posen on the 4th of October, 1943?
A He was not one of the persons who heard the speech.
Q Did you discuss this speech with the defendant, Dr. Bobermin?
A No