The circumstances which led to these conditions are, as I see it, in their majority to be explained by the extraordinary confusion of the last few weeks of the War. The German civilian population by air raids was completely demoralized. I experienced that myself, particularly the air raids which caused these conditions. I can only explain that no concentration camp received any supplies in the end and people, therefore, starved to death. I find that horrible but until I saw the films I did not have the slightest idea of these things.
Q.- Witness, one more question about that. Have you yourself been trained in any training courses of the SS?
A.- No, I never taken part in any military or ideological training course during the time when I was a member of the SS.
Q.- Witness, you were promoted in the Waffen-SS. Were you particularly quickly promoted? You held the same rank in the Waffen-SS which you held when you left the Navy, is that correct?
A.- Yes, I said that today. As for my promotions I can state that they were completely normal. The last time, in November 1943, I was made an SS-Oberfuehrer which is roughly a Colonel in the Wehrmacht. I may point out that comrades of mine who remained with the Navy in the end had the rank of Captain which is also equivalent to that of a Colonel.
Q.- Witness, a final question. The Prosecution in their opening statement have called you one of the executive assistants of Pohl. That is to say, the Prosecution maintains that you had been a participant or henchman of Pohl's in the accounts with which he is charged. I don't have to go into details here. We have discussed it. Did you commit any of the acts such as are expressed in the Indictment?
A.- No, with the utmost emphasis I can state that I never committed any injustice conscientiously against any human being.
Q.- May it please the Court, this terminates the direct examination of the defendant as a witness.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q.- Witness, you said that many of the things that you saw in the films were caused by the demoralization following air raids, destruction of transportation, shortage of food, and so on. You remember saying that?
A.- Yes, Your Honor.
Q.- Well, how do you account for the half million prisoners who were killed in Auschwitz in 1943/44? There was no demoralization then, was there?
A.- No. No. That has nothing to do with that, Your Honor. I was only thinking of the last few weeks of the War.
Q.- When things became very much worse?
A.- Yes, when everything deteriorated and as the films had been made since the end of the War, I assumed that the films on the whole described the conditions of the last weeks of the War and the confusion.
Q.- The films showed the conditions at their very worst?
A.- When they were very bad, indeed.
Q.- You suggested by your testimony that you thought that the atrocities were caused by just a few villains in an organization that was otherwise composed of very fine men?
DR. FRITSXH: Mr. President, I am so sorry, there was an interruption on the ear phones.
THE INTERPRETER: It seems all right now, sir.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. You suggested by your testimony that all of the terrible things which were done were done by just a few villains, bad men, belonging to an organization in which most of the men were very good. In other words, there are just a few bad SS men, and there were a great many good SS men.
A. That is what I said.
Q. And you believe that?
A. I believe that from the circle I experienced myself as a teacher, because I saw 1800 men whom I had educated, and they all went out to the front, almost all of them.
Q. How many SS men do you think participated in all of the murders that were committed during the war?
A. I am afraid that I am unable to tell you that.
Q. Well, let's take the figure 12,000,000. It isn't exact, but how many SS men would it take to murder 12,000,000 inmates? You don't know, of course?
A. No.
Q. No. You don't think that it was just a handful, just a half a dozen, do you?
A. No.
Q. It must have been thousands?
A. I cannot say about that from my earlier knowledge. I can only make statements from things I have heard here in this trial and from the documents that I have seen.
Q. I understand. I am trying to get your present attitude, the conclusion that you have now reached. Do you still believe that these atrocities were committed by just a handful, a very few bad men?
A. A handful, perhaps, is not the right term, but I believe that it definitely was a minority.
Q. What was the total strength of the SS at the top - I mean at the most - the Waffen SS?
A. I don't know the figure. Some hundred thousands.
Q. Oh, more than that. Does anyone know?
DR. FRITSCH: I believe about 900,000.
Q. Almost a million. That was including the fighting troops, who had nothing to do with concentration camps. Even if it was a minority, even if it was one-tenth, or one-hundredth, of that number, who had something to do with concentration camps, that is quite a few, isn't it?
A. Yes. Compared with the whole figure, it is little, but, absolutely speaking, it is very much.
Q. I don't want you to get the impression that the tremendous number of people who were murdered were the victims of just a small group, a mere handful, of bad SS men. You don't think that, do you?
A. No, Your Honor. After all, you explained it to me.
Q. You can't think that. You are not unreasonable enough to believe that, are you?
A. No, certainly not.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q. I understood you to testify on direct examination that when you made your affidavit which is contained in Document Book No. 1 you were so tired that you were not responsible for what you said in your affidavit. Why were you so tired in January of this year, when you had been in custody about two years?
A. By "tired" I mean the psychological state resulting from solitary confinement. I could not talk to anybody. Since August I had been in solitary confinement and that has a very strong effect upon people. For one month I couldn't read anything. I could not talk to anybody. This influenced my powers of resistance.
Q. When were you put in solitary confinement?
A. I was put in solitary confinement in August 1946.
Q. Over a year after you were arrested?
A. Yes.
Q. Why were you put in solitary confinement in August 1946 after you had been in custody over a year?
A. I was not told why.
Q. What part of your affidavit, or what parts of your affidavit, are not true?
A. May I just look it up in my book?
Q. Yes.
A. May I start?
Q. Yes. I want you now to briefly point out that part or those parts of your affidavit that you now repudiate under oath and say are not true, and you need not elaborate on them. Just point out those things that you say are stated in your affidavit that are not true. Go ahead.
A. It says that I had been Pohl's deputy. That was suggested by the interrogator. I tried to fight against it. It has been clarified in the meantime.
Q. I just told you not to elaborate on anything. Just tell me what wasn't so. Now, you say you were not Pohl's deputy?
A. Yes.
Q. All right, now, what next?
A. Then, Heinrich Himmler was not the sole partner. The statement that the OSTI was founded before 1943 is not correct. That should read "founded in 1943". I was not then with the Staff yet.
Then the remark about the labor camps on page 5. I was shown only the photostatic copy, but not the file note, and I could not see very well from that. This was the letter with the queer heading. I spoke as though I had ordered labor camps to be transformed into concentration camps because I could not inform myself.
Then I said that people are alleged to have been present who were underfed. That statement was suggested to me. I couldn't put it in any other way. Then towards the end of the war some people worked twelve hours. I did not know it any better at the time. Then on page 7 the forced labor camps I already talked about. It says Pohl give the order to change all these concentration camps into labor camps. I did not have the time to talk about that, and I couldn't possibly say anything more about that point, but the document is self-explanatory.
Q. You mean it is the other way around, change the labor camps into concentration camps?
A. Yes, that is what I meant, on page 7.
Q. You said the opposite.
That comes down to page 7 in your affidavit. Now you say there, "The auditor, Dr. Hohberg, was my predecessor as Chief of Staff W in the WVHA."
DR. FRITSCH: Mr. President, I can understand one word, and the other words do not come through, and then a word suddenly turns up again, but I cannot follow the context. It is a somewhat wavy contact.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Can the witness hear me now? I will speak slowly.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q. (By Judge Phillips) You state at the end of page 7, "The auditor, Dr. Hohberg, was my predecessor as Chief of the Staff W in the WVHA." Is that true or false?
A. That is true.
Q. Did you further state that "I, myself, as successor of Dr. Hohberg, likewise held the post of Pohl's deputy in my domain, exactly in the same manner as Hohberg himself, as Chief of Staff W, was deputy of Pohl in his work domain." Is that correct or false?
A. That is not true.
Q. In what respect is it not true?
A. Because Pohl's deputy was Loerner, and I have attempted within that interrogation to explain that. I might point out to you--
Q. That is all right. In other words, in all other respects, except as to the statement of a deputy of Pohl, is it correct with that exception?
A. Yes. It is not quite true to say from the beginning, because I didn't know when the time was.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: Cross examination by defense counsel.
BY DR. HEIM (Counsel for defendant Hohberg):
Q. Witness, did you in your affidavit use the name "Hohberg" or "Homberg"? In the text which is at my disposal he is called Homberg five times.
A. I did not look at the photostatic copy, but it could be clarified on the basis of that photostatic copy.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's not--- Hohberg, it couldn't be anything else, could it?
THE WITNESS: That I might have overlooked a letter somewhere is quite possible. Of course I knew the name Hohberg. I can only make a real statement about that if I see the original. Perhaps it is a misprint.
Q. (By Dr. Heim) You knew the name Hohberg?
A. Yes, I did, and I told Hohberg, the name Hohberg, to the interrogator.
Q. Witness, are you an auditor?
A. No.
Q. Dr. Hohberg is an auditor, isn't he?
A. Yes.
Q. How was it that Dr. Hohberg could have been your predecessor if you are not an auditor?
A. How do you mean? From the point of view of time of course he was my predecessor on Staff W.
Q. You said that you were not an auditor and that Hohberg was an auditor, didn't you?
A. Yes, quite right.
Q. In your affidavit you assert that Dr. Hohberg had been your predecessor, in other words, your predecessor as far as the work was concerned. Can you explain why Dr. Hohberg before your time was active as an auditor in the same work as you if you are not an auditor?
A. I don't believe that one has to assume in every case that the predecessor must have exactly the same sphere of work. Undoubtedly I did work which was looked after by Dr. Hohberg also. I would like to point out that Dr. Hohberg did not transfer over to me, which explains my difficulty, which was particularly great because I am unable to say to what extent he did the same work as I and to what extent he did other work. It is quite true that he was an auditor and I was not when I was ordered to join the staff. Is that enough for you?
Q. Witness, if I have understood you correctly, you wanted to say that Dr. Hohberg had not carried out the same work as you did later on?
A. Obviously not.
DR. HEIM: Thank you very much. No further questions.
BY DR. KLINERT (For defendants Volk and Bobermin):
Q. Witness, you said on your direct examination that the contract between the Reich and the DWB concerning the loan from the Reinhardt Fund had been carried out by the legal department of the Reich. In order to make quite clear the agency which dealt with this, I want you to answer this question. Was it the legal office, that is Office III of Office Group A, or was it the Legal Department of Staff W?
A. If it was processed by a Reich agency, which I said, then in my opinion it can only have been the Legal Office, Office A, in Office Group A
Q. Do you know who was in charge of that office?
A. Who was there throughout that period I don't know, but as long as I was with Staff W it was Dr. Salpeter.
Q. The legal department of Staff W was not concerned with this, in other words?
A. No, not according to what I found.
Q. Another question. Did Dr. Volk, when he tried to work out the rate, have anything to do with figuring out the wages or compensation for inmates?
A. Dr. Volk did not have anything to do with that.
Q. Now, a few questions about the defendant Bobermin. Did you in 1943 carry out the auditing of the Klinker Concrete Works, G.m.b.H.?
A. I am afraid I don't remember the time, but this auditing was made for the year 1943. We were concerned with the normal final balance sheet for the annual report.
Q. Who carried out the auditing?
A. I believe it was an auditor named Traeger.
Q. Did you find any deficiencies in his auditing?
A. I cannot recall anything wrong. If anything more had been found out, I would still know it.
Q. Did you also audit the Eastern German Building and Construction Material Company, G.m.b.H.?
A. Well, that company was a Reich company which had nothing to do with Staff W, and was, therefore, not to be audited by the auditing department of Staff W.
Q. Another question. Did the defendant Bobermin at the beginning of 1944 address to you the request to advocate his transfer to a combat unit?
A. I remember that the defendant Bobermin came to see me and expressed a wish that he wanted to fight, wanted to go to the front, and I also remember that I had the opportunity to transmit his wish to Pohl. By transmitting it I advocated it, of course.
Q. Were there any results?
A. Yes. The defendant Bobermin went to the front - I believe to Hungary. That was possible because he had a good deputy.
DR. KLINERT: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take a short recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. FICHT: May it please Your Honors, before I make any further statements, may I state that I am acting here as the deputy for Dr. Haensel, by arrangement with Dr. Hoffmann, and I should like to ask a few questions in connection with the defendant Georg Loerner. I would appreciate it if you can gain an impression of how I am representing Dr. Haensel, considering the long chain of command.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Dr. Haensel.
BY DR. FICHT: (For Georg Loerner):
Q. Witness, please take a look at Document Book No. XIV, and in there take a look at Document 1048, which is the last document in Document Book XIV. It's an order by Pohl that the W Office Chiefs were to inform Georg Loerner of all important matters. This is an order, as I may state, dated December 1942. Therefore, it is an order which came out prior to your time. My question now is the following: Did you know that order when you became Chief of W?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Was it handled in the manner in which it is described in that document?
A. No, it wasn't.
Q. Then I would like to ask you the additional question: Was Georg Loerner at any time consulted for important decisions in any matters of the Amtsgruppe, or, perhaps, as a second business manager of the DWB? Was he in a position to make such decisions in the first place?
A. Pohl was the sole man who took all the important decisions.
DR. FICHT: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: No Shakespeare?
DR. FICHT: No, not this time, Your Honors. I am sorry.
BY DR. FRACHT (For Dr. Froeschmann for the Defendant Mummenthey):
Q. Which factories of the DEST did you see?
A. Oranienburg, Flossenbuerg, and, together with Mummenthey, I saw Bergstetten.
Q. By Oranienburg, do you mean the brick factory?
A. Yes, the brick factory.
Q. Did you have the opportunity to gain an insight into the working conditions prevailing there?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What was the impression which you gained as far as those working conditions were concerned?
A. The large brick factory was strongly mechanized, and in no way can be compared with a normal brick factory which worked on handwork, for instance, the one which I saw in my northern Germany country.
Q. Do I have to understand from your answer that the work there was done mostly by machines and not by hand?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you see anything at all about the treatment of the inmates?
A. When I visited that factory I couldn't see a thing.
Q. Therefore, no abuses, and things like that, beatings, and so on?
A. No.
Q. Surely, you also gained an impression of the physical condition of the inmates. What was the impression you gained there? It is natural that the war had been going on for quite a while, and would have been natural to expect to see people in the finest physical condition.
A. Yes, bearing in mind war conditions, the condition of the inmates as I could observe them while working gave no reason for complaint.
Q. Do you know the business manager of the DEST Mumennthey dealt with the question of procuring additional food for the inmates and that he also succeeded in doing so?
A. Yes, I do know about it. I know in particular that he tried to get tobacco and food for those people, particularly, potatoes, and I would like to refer to the statement made by the Witness Karoli here yesterday, with whom I was in Oranienburg, and he spoke about those things on that occasion.
Q. According to your opinion these steps which the Defendant Mummenthey took, do you think that they were based on the fact that he thought that the people he saw at working places could no longer work, due to their physical weakness?
A. No, that was not the reason. The general food conditions in Germany might have contributed to Mummenthey making special efforts.
Q. And, as we are just speaking about Mummenthey as a person, let me ask you a question, which you as Chief of Amtsgruppe W should be able to answer, namely, what is your opinion of business qualifications of Mummenthey?
A. The business abilities on the part of Mummenthey, I could describe by using the word which is common in Germany, he was a good business man.
Q. And, if we change over to his personal qualifications, what do you say of them?
A. Mummenthey is a simple and quiet man, extremely industrious. He has a social conscience. He was simple and sober in his life and of all the office chiefs he was the one I liked most.
Q. From your answer I understand then that Mummenthey's attitude towards the inmates sprang from his human qualities.?
A. Yes, I believe this contributed more than anything else.
Q. Do you know, Witness, within whose competence within the business management of the DEST, the German Earth and Stone Works, questions concerning labor assignment of inmates were?
A. The competence of the labor assignment of the concentration camp inmates should actually be connected with that particular party who had to see to the production, that is the technical business management, and not the bookkeeping business department, and one of them was the business manager, mentioned here yesterday who was Schondorf.
Q. Then, Witness, Mummenthey's field of task referred to both the commercial and the one about bookkeeping and the financial one, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Was Mummenthey's time fully taken up by those fields of task?
A. Yes.
Q. Whose place did he take when he became the business manager of the DEST, the German Earth and Stone Works?
A. Through the auditing work which I carried out, it is known to me that in peacetime when establishing the big brick factories in Oranienburg, certain wrong investments had taken place, which prevailed to the disadvantage of the firm up to the moment when Mummenthey took over. This heritage was a bad one and it was not a very great advantage to him financially speaking.
Q. Very well, Witness, I have one more question. You were also at the construction site at Branbach-Kirchen, weren't you? That was where a large factory was to be established?
A. Yes, I visited the construction site. I heard that a certain construction was to be established there, but the land was agricultural rather and no preparations could be seen and nothing was being built and the only thing that was standing there was a barracks.
Q. My final question to you is of a technical nature. If on a document we have a so-called distribution list, as can be seen here on several occasions, and the fact that the person's name is contained on distribution list, does that mean that the person actually saw the document and acknowledged it and noticed it?
A. What do you mean, a distribution list or a circulation list?
Q. It would be about the same.
A. In the circulation list, if it is counter signed, he saw it, but in the distribution list it is not necessarily a fact that he saw it. It may have occurred, but it is not necessary.
DR. FRACHT: Thank you. No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions by the defense counsel? If not, the prosecution may cross-examine.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness, you have been telling us for two days that you never heard of the bad conditions in the concentration camps and in the course of your business that you were not informed about the conditions of concentration camp inmates which existed in any of the industries; everything, as far as you know, you say, was quite beautiful in the concentration camps. I am going to show you a few documents now which I think will help your memory in that respect. As far as I can find out these are not the documents that you surrendered. First will you tell us what the German Schieferoel Company was? Was this one of the SS industries?
A. The German Schieferoel, G.M.B.H., had been founded by the SS.
Q. Was it under the control of the WVHA?
A. The Deutsche Schieferoel, G.M.B.H., was part of Amtsgruppe B. However, I would like to add that the Deutsche Schieferoel, G.M.B.H., didn't have a factory of its own, but.....
Q. You say it was part of Amtsgruppe B?
A. No, W.
Q. W?
A. W, yes.
Q. And did you receive a copy of this letter, which is document NO 3793?
I should like to mark this Prosecution Exhibit 582 for identification. It is NO 3793. Do you remember this letter, Witness? It is surely something you couldn't forget.
A. I have never seen that letter.
Q. That is very interesting. We will investigate that a little further. Will you turn to the last page of the letter? I should like to read you just a part of it. First tell us who Jacobi is?
A. Jacobi was the business manager of the Deutsche Schieferoel G.M.B.H.
Q. This letter is addressed to Staff W, and there he says:
"I have lately thoroughly inspected Camp Bisingen, administered by SS Hauptsharfuehrer as Camp Commander, and I found frightful conditions prevailing there." And then he makes the following report: "The camp was occupied in the first days of October by 1500 mostly Polish prisoners. It is situated on an extremely wet meadow; there are no pathways. The ground has become completely bogged. The hygienic installations, which are of the most primitive kind, such as toilets, dispensary and washrooms, are absolutely inadequate; further, they are too far apart, and hard to reach under these muddy conditions. Consequently, extreme filth and vermin are prevailing, and the health situation has become unjustifiable. On 1 December 1944 there were about 420 persons sick, mostly from diarrhea, a general debility and weakness of the heart." I suppose you believe those causes when you saw the letter -- but continuing - "Since the Camp has been in operation 233 deaths are on record (in 8 weeks); of these only 6 were shot whilst trying to escape, and 6 committed suicide. A graph is annexed." Perhaps when I show you the graph it will help your recollection as to whether or not you saw the letter. Do you remember seeing this graph of the prisoners dying there?
A. (inaudible)
Q. Beg Pardon?
A. (inaudible)
Q. Will you look quite closely at the markings on the graph?
A. From this graph here I can see the graph, a written notation by Pohl.
Q. Did you carry out any function at all with regard to this oil company, you arranged for the guards to be sent there, and arrangements for billeting to be furnished?
A. No.
Q. Do you mean to say you never saw this letter?
A. No, I don't recall having seen this letter.
Q. I will show you another document --
A. All it contains is that pencilled -
Q. That isn't your "B" down there at the bottom by any chance is it, it is not the way you make a "B", is it?
A. Where? I don't see that.
Q. On the graph?
A. All I can see is a "P".
Q. You don't see a "B" down there, in the lower right hand corner?
A. On this document, no.
MR. ROBBINS: Let me see the one he has.
THE WITNESS: That is the date, the 13th of December.
Q. Allright. Let me show you another document, witness, perhaps this will --
Q. You say this is not your initial?
A. No, that is not my initial. That is 13 December. That is what it stands for, the 13th or 12th.
Q. This isn't the way you make a "B" in any event, is it?
A. No, it isn't.
Q. Let me show you another letter, Witness, and see if this helps your recollection.
DR. FRITSCH: May it please, Your Honor, could I ask that the photostatic copy be shown to me also. Oh, I have a copy. Thank you very much. Thank you. I have it now.
Q. This is your "B" on this letter, isn't it, Document NO 3794?
A. That is my "B" allright.
Q. This is written several days after the first letter, and in this letter you arrange for the guard details in the prisoner camps. You say you have made contact with the defendant Fowler, Office Group D-2.
I should like to mark both the graph and this letter for identification. The graph has a separate document number, NO 4073, which I will mark as Prosecution Exhibit 583, and the document NO 3794 as Prosecution Exhibit 584.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Mr. Robbins, let me see the photostat copy of the original, where the "B" is initialed, --- of 584.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. You wrote this letter, did you not?
A. The letter was not written by me.
Q. You signed it, didn't you?
A. Yes, I signed it. It was written by Dr. Volk and refers to a letter dated December 6, -
Q. I should like to show you the letter of 6th December, -- perhaps this will help your recollection on this subject. This is NO 4078. I will mark this Prosecution Exhibit 585 for identification. Did you receive this letter, witness?
A. Yes, it came to our staff, and I countersigned.
Q. And it was sent by the same Jacobi and it was a request that you make arrangements for the guards for this industry; and you say you didn't make any kind of an arrangement or have any dealings with the billeting of the inmates there. I should like to show you still another document and see if this doesn't also help your recollection.
This is NO 3900, which I will mark as Prosecution Exhibit 586. This is signed by the Chief-W. Did you see this letter before, Exhibit 586, Document NO 3900?
A. That is a letter which was signed by Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Hofmann.
Q. And he signs your title to it, the Chief of Staff-W; I ask you the question, have you seen this letter before? It is a simple question to answer.
A. You mean the letter which was a reply to this one? You mean the letter which was a reply to this one, Mr. Prosecutor? Yes, I did.
Q. I am talking about the letter of 25 February 1945?
THE PRESIDENT: The 22nd.
Q. The 22nd of February 1945?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And this deals with providing the accommodation of prisoners who worked with the industry. I would like to call your attention, witness, that on the first document I showed you that the document is addressed the same way, and deals with the same subject matter, and it is a subject you have been dealing with over a course of months; you still maintain you didn't see the report on the conditions?
A. No, I didn't see that report. That could be seen from the photostat copy.
Q. The photostatic copy shows that it was marked for the Chief of Staff W. You mean to say that you didn't get it?
A. If I didn't have my initials on that I didn't receive it.
Q. Can you make any possible explanation for the fact that you didn't receive it when you received all these other letters and dealt with them? Couldn't it be because you have --
A. It was a matter that I didn't have to deal with and according to my opinion the whole thing seems to have been that the letter went to Staff W by Jacobi by mistake and the photostatic copy was transferred, Dr. Hoffmann countersigned and it was sent on to Pohl.
Q. This whole thing was just directed to Staff W by mistake, was it? Just got into your hands by mistake - this whole matter is that your story?
A. What I said referred to the first document. The task of the procurement of guard unit from Amtsgruppe D and the report on the decision made by the main office chief that the terain for inmates was to be paid by Reich fund has been dealt with in Staff W.
Q. Yes, This whole matter as is observed from the document came within your confidence. I would like to show you still another letter dealing with this matter and see if you can remember this. This is NO-4077. From the same Jacobi, addressed in the same way and about the same subject matter, namely about the conditions in the camp. Did you receive this letter? Did you receive this letter?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you read it? This concerns the same subject matter that the first letter dealt with, doesn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. It is entitled "Conditions at Camp Bisingen". I would like to show you another document, witness, that shows that you continued dealing with this matter. Before we leave 4077 I should like to mark that as Exhibit 587.