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
Q Did the defendant, Dr. Bobermin, in any way support the Reinhardt Action which was carried out against the Jews in the General Government or did he participate in this Action in any manner?
A No, nothing of that kind has come to my knowledge.
Q Did you ever discuss with the defendant, Dr. Bobermin, this Reinhardt Action?
A No.
Q I now hand to you Document NO-1015. It is in Document Book 16, on page 92 of the German document book. It is Exhibit 451. I now ask you to make a statement to the question whether the defendant, Dr. Bobermin, knew of the origin of the funds.
MR. ROBBINS: The letter is signed by Dr. Bobermin, and I hardly think the witness is competent to answer Whether Bobermin had knowledge of the source of the funds that are stated in the letter signed by Bobermin.
THE PRESIDENT: It is impossible for one witness to tell what was in another's mind. If you want to ask him whether he ever spoke to Dr. Bobermin about the fund, but it is not proper to ask him what Dr. Bobermin knew.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I asked the witness for facts from which the knowledge or the failure of knowledge of the defendant, Dr. Bobermin can be established. The witness was not to answer the question if Dr. Bobermin had knowledge of it, but if any facts are contained in this document and if he can inform the Tribunal of any facts which could be essential to establish the fact if Dr. Bobermin did or did not have knowledge.
THE PRESIDENT: I think I could answer the question by looking at the document myself, but go ahead and ask the witness. He may answer.
A The Action Reinhardt has been mentioned in this document, and it could be assumed that Bobermin consequently had knowledge of what the Action Reinhardt actually was. Apparently he only heard of its designation by the request of Sturmbannfuehrer Wippert to turn over the 1.2 million zloty to Melmer.
I am of the opinion that if Bobermin had had exact knowledge of what the Action Reinhardt really was and what was behind it, then he would have classified this letter to Hohberg as top secret. However, he sent it as an open letter through the mail. If he had been informed, he would have had to classify this document differently.
THE PRESIDENT: You see, this answer illustrates exactly the point which the Prosecution has been raising. The witness is speculating and guessing and putting his own version on the letter in spite of the fact that you said that you wanted him to give you facts. He says it could be supposed; it is possible. These are not facts.
DR. GAWLIK: In this connection he states the fact that such a letter would have had to be classified as top secret. It is not the task of the witness to draw the conclusions. However, that is a fact which he has stated with regard to this letter.
MR. ROBBINS: Your Honor, it seems to me it goes a long way to prove that Action Reinhardt was not nearly as secret as the witness has testified to.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is making your argument for you, Dr. Gawlik. All of these conclusions are conclusions that you might draw in making your argument, your final argument. You had better save something for yourself.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q I now come to the count of the indictment dealing with slave labor. Was it part of the tasks of W-II to participate in the planning and execution of plans dealing with the supplying of plants with labor and the labor which was to be achieved by concentration camp inmates?
A No.
Q Did the defendant, Dr. Bobermin, ever exercise such an activity?
A No.
Q Witness, you have already given us the number of the plants which were directed by Amt W-II. There were approximately four hundred plants, is that correct?
A Yes, there were at the most four hundred plants.
Q Will you please tell the Tribunal just in how many of these plants concentration camp labor was used?
AAmong all these plants, concentration camp labor was only used in Golleschau because the remainder of the brick works was distributed all over the vast eastern space and only free labor was used in them.
Q That was the cement factory at Golleschau?
A Yes.
Q Did the defendant, Dr. Bobermin, ever order the use of prisoners' labor in these Portland Cement factories at Golleschau?
A No. I gave that order, but he reported to me that at Golleschau as a result of the conscription to the armed forces these plants would have to be shut down. As a result of this, I ordered the use of prisoner labor from Auschwitz.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be a recess until a quarter of two.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess until 1345.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1350 hours, May 23, 1947).
THE MARSHAL: Person's in the courtroom will take their seats.
Military Tribunal II is again in session.
OSWALD POHL - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. GAWLIK (For Defendants Volk and Bobermin):
Q. Witness, before recess we discussed the utilization of prison labor at Golleschau. In summarizing, I would like to say, is it correct that the defendant, Dr. Bobermin, suggested that the plant should be closed down?
A. Yes.
Q. And that you personally ordered the use of prison labor?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Could the Defendant Bobermin prevent the execution of the order which you gave?
A. No, he was unable to do that.
Q. Was the commitment of prisoners at Golleschau, was that not more than a temporary measure?
A. It would have been discontinued when the former condition and the employment of free labor could have again been restored, and would have been the latest at the end of the war.
Q. Did the Defendant Bobermin ever request that prisoners, concentration camp inmates, should be employed at any of the numerous other plants which were subordinate to your organization?
A. No, he did not do that.
Q. Who was responsible for the feeding of the prison labor of the concentration camp inmates who worked at Golleschau?
A. The prisoners at Golleschau were not billeted in a labor camp, but they were quartered in an outside camp of the concentration camp Auschwitz. This camp was subordinated to detachment leader of the concentration camp Auschwitz, and the branch camp was administered by the administration of the concentration camp Auschwitz. It was responsible for the billeting, the feeding, and other requirements of the prisoners.
Q. Who was charged with the selection of the prisoners who were used at Golleschau?
A. Like in all camps, this was the task of the camp commanders.
Q. Who had supervision over the prisoners while they worked at Golleschau?
A. The plant manager.
Q. Who fixed the working hours?
A. The working hours were set according to the requirements of the plant, and they were fixed by the plant manager.
Q. Were not the working hours fixed, generally fixed?
A. The general fixing of the working hours through me only extended to the W plants. I do not know at the moment if it extended to the plants of the W-II who usually were only filled with free labor, and if this regulation was carried out there, it is possible that it also extended to the plant at Golleschau. In that case I would have been competent for fixing the working hours. However, at Golleschau there were also free workers who were employed there. I am unable to say that exactly.
Q. Could the defendant, Dr. Bobermin, take care of the details of the plant at Golleschau?
A. Since his office was located at Posen, and since he supervised four hundred other plants, he was unable to take care of the details in connection with the plants. This included Golleschau.
Q. Can you tell us anything about how far the work at Golleschau was removed from the concentration camp Auschwitz?
A. I do not know that exactly, but I don't think it was one hundred kilometers. It was approximately eighty to one hundred kilometers.
Q. Could the Defendant Bobermin when he visited Bolleschau have knowledge of anything that happened in the concentration camp Auschwitz?
A. No, not if he visited Golleschau.
Q. Did you ever hear that the inmates who were working at Golleschau were treated inhumanely?
A. I personally did not hear anything about it.
Q Were the working conditions in Golleschau in any way less favorable then the working conditions in any other concrete factory?
A. I visited Golleschau approximately on two occasions, and I did not see any other working conditions there than those which existed in the other concrete factories.
Q. Can you recall that the plant manager of Golleschau on one occasion had difficulties with the Party because of the treatment of prisoners?
A. I can remember that the Gauleiter of this area, because of some matter involving Golleschau, turned to me on one occasion, but I do not know anymore in what connection that was. In any case the employment of prisoners was involved.
Q. Could this have been the use of the plant bath for the prisoners?
A. I cannot tell you that anymore today.
Q. In the plants which were subordinated to Amt W-2 were any more prisoners of war employed there?
A. No.
Q. Did the defendant Dr. Bobermin have anything to do with the labor allocation of prisoners of war?
A. No.
Q.Did the defendant Dr. Bobermin have anything to do with the planning and the execution of plans which intended to deport inhabitants of occupied territories to the Reich?
A. No.
Q. Do you know whether the defendant Bobermin ordered such measures to be carried out?
A. No, I do hot know anything about it.
Q. Would you have known if the defendant Bobermin had such measures carried out?
A. Yes, by all means.
Q. Who confiscated the East Construction Limited?
A. The chief in the Four Year Plan under Goering.
Q. Can you tell the Tribunal that the position of that company was and to what organization it belonged?
A. The Chief Trusteeship Agency (Ost) belonged to the Four Year Plan whose chief was Goering. The Chief Trusteeship Agency (Ost) was the agency which ordered all confiscation in the occupied eastern territories.
MR. ROBBINS: The translation on that came through as "Dest". Is that not a mistake?
INTERPRETER: If your Honor please, the interpreter said "Ost" meaning East.
BY DR. GAWLIK: (Counsel for the defendants Volk and Bobermin):
Q. Witness, in order to avoid any mistake, will you please tell us once more the designation of the agency which carried out these confiscations?
A. It was the Chief Trusteeship Agency (Ost) which belonged to the Four Year Plan which was directed by Goering. The Chief Trusteeship Agency (Ost) had carried out all the confiscations in the Eastern Occupied Territories , and it administered the plants and estates which had been confiscated.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honors, I have just heard that the word "confiscation" as used by the translator is not correct. It should not mean "a confiscation of property; it should mean the "seizure;" the property remained the same. The "confiscation" translation is not correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there a difference?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, Your Honor. In the case of confiscation, the property is lost; then the property is taken away from its former owner. In the case of siezure the property remained in the hands of he owner but the owner has only limited rights. The property remained unchanged.
MR. ROBBINS: May I say that the translator doesn't agree with the counsel's own translation. I suggest that this is something the witness had better testify to than Counsel, anyway.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the German word that is in controversy?
DR. GAWLIK: "Beschlagnahme."
THE PRESIDENT: What does it mean?
DR. GAWLIK: "Beschlagnahme" means the limited rights over property -- and I do not say "confiscation." "Einziehung" means when the property is taken away."
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will understand it to mean a seizure or taking possession of as distinguished from confiscation.
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Witness, when were these plants seized?
A. After the completion of the campaign in Poland, That was at the end of 1939.
Q. That was at a time when the defendant Dr. Bobermin was not even a member of Amt A-III , or W-II?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Is it correct that you were appointed general trustee of the brick plant?
A. Yes, that is correct?
Q. Please describe to the Tribunal why you were appointed general trustee of this brick plant.
A. My appointment as general custodian took place at the suggestion of Himmler, who, in order to secure the requirements of material for his settlement plants, for the construction of SS and Police bases in the Eastern area, wanted to have the necessary construction materials set aside. That is why I as appointed general trustee of the Eastern Brick Works. The brock works were taken out of the Chief Trustee's Office for the East, and they were administered by me in a special type of administration. And Bobermin was the man who constructed this agency.
Q. What type of workers were used in the plants on the Eastern Construction Works:
Was it Free Labor, or were these people prisoners?
A. In these plants only Free workers were employed.
Q. What were the working conditions in the plants of the Eastern Construction plants?
A. The working conditions were the same as in all other private industries.
Q. What do you know about the improvements within the plants which were carried out in the plants which were under the direction of Amt W-II?
A. After the completion of the campaign in Poland almost all the plants were shut down, and after they had teen shut down for so long a period of time -- also through the effects of the war -- they naturally had suffered. Here we dealt primarily with old plants which were very much in need of improvement.
We therefore primarily saw to it that these plants were again activated, resumed production. For this purpose repairs had to be carried out. The machines either had to be repaired or frequently they had to be replaced. The furnaces had to be renewed and repaired, and in almost all of the plants extensive repairs had to be carried out. This work was carried out by the orders of Bobermin.
Q. Were there German labor camps or concentration camps in Hungary?
A. No.
Q. In Hungary were any economic enterprises subordinated to the defendant Bobermin?
A. No.
Q. I want to summarize this material. Was it part of the tasks of the defendant Bobermin--
MR. ROBBINS: I don't see any need for Counsel to summarize in the form of a question to this witness. He has asked him at great length about Bobermin's duties, and there is no need to put a very leading, general question in the way of a summary. He can save that for argument, I suggest.
