I am putting this request before you already at such an early date now because I would like to have the Tribunal's decision before I prepare the closing brief, if any, and the final plea.
May it please Your Honor, may I say something else in this connection? My colleagues did not quite agree with me on the time of one to two hours. They assume that they might possibly need three hours for the closing plea. I would appreciate it if you would consider the time limit of one or two hours for me only. As for the others -
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Robbins, do you propose to file a brief on behalf of the Prosecution, indicating which parts of the proof you consider of value as to each defendant?
MR. ROBBINS: I certainly intend to. I hope that I can do it, and I expect to do it.
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, may I add something very briefly? I would again like to stress the point that all the Defense Counsels in the Medical Trial agree that as far as the Defense is concerned, they are not too happy about the closing briefs because the difficulties of the translation and other things have shown, that it would be much better if we could possibly present the entire matter in the final plea The defendants also feel that whatever is presented here by the defense counsels in this Tribunal, is more impressive than would be a closing brief. Therefore, I should like to plead for a plea.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean, Dr. Hoffmann to you will make oral arguments instead of written briefs?
DR. HOFFMANN: Yes.
DR. GAWLIK (Counsel for defendants Volk and Bobermin): Your Honor, I believe that my colleague Hoffmann has spoken only on his behalf. These ideas about the closing briefs do vary as far as I know. A closing brief can only be disposed with, when the Defense Counsel has a sufficient time for the final argument, because otherwise it would be jeopardizing the Defense if one does not have the opportunity to submit the entire material which he considers necessary for the defense.
DR. FROESCHMANN (For Defendant Mummenthey): Mr. President, may I make a suggestion? I hear for the first time that my colleague, Dr. Hoffmann, in this trial raises the question of the time limit of the final pleas and the filing of a closing brief. The defense counsels within the SS trial have so far not yet taken any position towards that question and therefore think it inappropriate to have the Tribunal deal now with a question which is of importance to all defense counsel and which is suggested by only one counsel. I would like to make the suggestion that the entire matter be discussed by a commission and submitted to your Honors, and that decision may only then be taken.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we can say this much this morning. The time allowed for argument will not be three hours. It will be less than three hours, but not less than one hour. We are not fixing the time this morning, but don't count on three hours. You can count on one hour, possibly no more. We will decide that later. With eighteen defendants it would be out of the question to devote three hours to each defendant's argument, moreover, it wouldn't be needed. Everything can be properly presented in less than three hours certainly. Now, just a minute.
Well, Dr. Hoffmann, speaking just for yourself now, do you propose to have your final argument in manuscript form, written out?
DR. HOFFMANN: Yes, indeed.
THE PRESIDENT: So that the translators can read it as they translate. Well, what do you mean by a brief then?
DR. HOFFMANN: Apart from this final argument in the medical trial a brief has been introduced in which the individual arguments of the prosecution and the rebuttal by the defense have been set down against each other, very detailed and point by point, testimony for the defendant or testimony against the defendant. Then from the comparison of these statements once the defense, inclosing brief, has drawn the conclusion, that is the reason why the defendant cannot be sentenced, so that the final argument has only brought the broad outline but not the individual small finesses upon which the individual argument is based.
THE PRESIDENT: This Tribunal has no desire to hear an argument and also to read a brief. The purpose of this argument is to do just what you were talking about in the brief, that is to take up the different points against each particular defendant and show that they are either good or bad for him. So we are satisfied with an argument only without a brief. Then we will have a transcript of your argument, and that is a brief. It is all the brief we feel we need anyway. Now, this will take a burden off both defense counsel and the translation division and also the Court.
The Tribunal has determined that each counsel will have one hour and one half for closing argument. If in some particular case it develops that is not enough, the Tribunal will entertain a request for additional time, but your argument should be framed with the idea that an hour and a half is the limit. If at that time some counsel has found that he has not adequately argued his case, we will gladly listen to a request for further time.
Now, is it understood that the arguments are to be in writing so that they can be translated for the benefit of the interpreters? That is, they won't have to interpret as they hear your argument for the first time. They will have a copy in front of them. All right.
It is also understood that any request for additional time beyond the hour and a half will be made in time to get the translation ready and that it won't be made at the end of the hour and a half. It will be made ahead of time.
HANS BAIER - Resumed CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness, you told us yesterday that you knew that conditions at the German Slate Oil Company, (Deutsche Oelschiefer, G.m.b.H.) and the working conditions there were bad.
Just how bad did you know they were?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, I would like to point out that the Schieferoel, G.m.b.H. did not have a plant. There was only Hauptsturmfuehrer Jacobi who was a collaborator of Pohl's and a liaison officer, who had been sent there for that purpose; namely, in order to make certain observations there, particularly with respect to the establishment of those plants by the Deutsche Bau-Und Huettengesellschaft. The company which established the plant was not a company of Staff W but was part of the Reich Office, that is to say, part of a high Reich office which was the Reich Office for Economic Expansion. That was the Deutsche Erdopl-Forschungsgesellschaft.
Q. I don't think you are answering my question, witness. I asked you what you knew about conditions there. You said you knew they were bad. I ask you how bad were they, to your knowledge?
A. From the letter by Hauptsturmfuehrer Jacobi of the 6th of December I was informed about those matters, and in this letter it is stated what measures he took. I could understand from it that, as it is stated there, the OT had undertaken the duty to establish a camp. That was the reason why I had to assume that he had gone there and had found unbearable and intolerable conditions.
Furthermore, thereupon, he had arranged for a series of measures in order to create order again.
I would like to point out that this was the only oil deposit in Germany, and I know that there was an order by Hitler to take all the possible measures in order to exploit that oil deposit. It was not only the Reichs Office for Economic Expansion that was working on this matter but also the German Office for Immediate Action.
Q. You say then that you understood from the letter of the 6th of December that the conditions were unbearable and intolerable. Is that what you said? Isn't that what you just said, witness? Tell us what you just said about that.
A. They are speaking of the conditions which apparently were due to the Organization Todt not being properly informed. In any case, there was something wrong there. I could read that from that part of the letter-
Q. Excuse me. Didn't you just tell us that you understood from this letter that conditions were--to use your own words--"unbearable and intolerable"? That became clear from the letter, didn't it?
A. From the letter it became clear that the conditions, in any case, were not in order because the six points which are contained in the end of the letter show that.
Q. Then, witness, the first sentence in the letter says referring to his letter of the fourth of December. He says he is giving you the following additional facts.
He refers to conditions already described in his letter of the fourth of December.
You weren't curious to look at the letter of the fourth of December, is that right?
A. At that time, it was not possible to see every letter and maybe this letter came to Pohl, because as I can see from the -
Q. This letter came to Pohl's attention, didn't it? It was received by one of your staff members?
A. Yes, he gave it to Pohl directly without my having taken note of it. If I had been there on that day--I probably wasn't there, you see; then, I would have seen the letter.
Q. Suppose you tell us if you heard of any other working conditions connected with SS industries that were not quite up to normal?
A. You mean outside of the Schieferoel G.m.b.H?
Q. Yes.
A. Mr. Prosecutor, of course it is possible at all times--and particularly in the six years of the war--that somewhere, on some occasion, the working conditions were not quite in order; but those things, however, according to my knowledge of the things, should have been referred to Pohl directly; I don't believe that the question-
Q. I don't ask you who it should be referred to; I just ask you what you heard about them? Is that the only instance that you heard about where conditions were bad?
A. I can't recall any other case.
Q. This is the only case you remember about it?
A. Yes.
Q. Here in the Schiefer Oil did you hear that anybody had died? Any of the inmates?
A. I can't recall.
Q. Never heard of that? Did you hear that anybody was sick?
A. According to my recollection, no.
Q. Did you follow up this situation to see that an improvement was made?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, that was not within my sphere of competence.
Q. I just asked you if you did. Is the answer no?
A. Well, something was done according to this letter of the sixth of December; that letter was dealt with.
Q. I am asking you, after the sixth of December did you follow it up to find out if any improvements were made?
A. I would like to point out to the letter dated the 13th of December; it is stated that "Upon your request for information I inform you that I have established immediate contact with Office Group D and have requested that by all means 79 men be detached as guard detail for the oil field there. SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Sommer, of Office Group D II has promised to take the case up with SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Harbohm and to cause the necessary steps to be taken."
Q. Were these 79 men sent there to improve the working conditions?
A. No, but I assume that the guard personnel at the same time had the duty there to see to it that order existed there. As can be seen from the dictation mark, from the initial on the side this letter was dealt with by Dr. Volk and I assume that he came to see me with the completed letter, and possibly also told me that Jacobi had asked him to participate in eliminating certain deficiencies. That is how I signed that letter.
Q. And you stick to your testimony that this is the only instance where bad working conditions were reported to you?
A. I have stated before, Mr. Prosecutor, it is possible, of course, that towards the end of the war the working conditions somewhere possibly have become worse, as I said before, possibly as a result of air-raids by force weakened, or through illness. But I don't remember ever having heard about it.
Q. You don't remember receiving any reports about it addressed to Staff W?
A. No, I don't; and I believe that I would have passed them on to Pohl immediately because I was not competent for him.
Q. Do you exclude the possibility that such reports came in?
A. If you are referring to the letter of the 6th of December then I may say that this letter actually should not have been sent to Staff W but rather to Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl direct. It was because Tacoly was his liaison man who received his orders from Pohl-not from me. And why he did that I couldn't tell you. It is possible that a letter went--via Staff W --
Q. Excuse me, you are not answering my questions. We will get along much faster if you will just answer the questions as I put them to you.
Do you exclude the possibility that you received other reports on bad working conditions?
A. I think it improbable.
Q. You may be interested, with reference to a comment you just made about air-raids being the cause for the bad conditions, that in the letter of the fourth of December, 1944, Jacobi reports, says in his letter, "There is no bombing damage to report."
Do you remember being interrogated on the sixth of January, 1947, witness?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Did you tell the interrogator at that time that you had heard about bad conditions in labor installations, and had made attempts to improve them?
A. I can't remember, but if I said it then possibly I was thinking about that letter of the 6th of December.
Q. Now, tell us, witness, what all of this has to do with auditing, and then we will pass on to another matter. Did you deal with this in your capacity as an auditor? Or was this another "special project?"
A. These documents? You mean these documents, Mr. Prosecutor, which have been submitted so far?
Q. Yes, concerning the Slate Oil Company.
A. That was a special case, and as I stated before, was due to the unique conditions which prevailed at the time. As I stated before, the construction activity was a matter which was dealt with by an entirely different company, and so was the establishment of the plant. Jacobi was merely liaison officer and the concentration camps, that is to say they were labor camps, and as I have seen from the documents they were from Natzweiler. They had not been placed at the disposal of those agencies which were carrying out construction work there, and they also had applied for the inmates. I have no certain knowledge about it but that was the way it was because these were the plants. And if Jacobi noticed bad conditions, as a liaison man by Pohl, and has reported about them I can see from the documents that he immediately saw to it that all those dificiencies which he noticed were taken care of at once.
Q. This Jacobi was only a liaison man? You know very well, don't you, that this project was under Amtsgruppe W and specifically under the Defendant Mummenthey, W-I, isn't that true?
A. The project, no. The project was a matter of the Reich Office for Economic Extension.
Q. Wasn't the Slate Oil Company under W-I?
A. Under B-I?
Q. No, W.
A. I don't know it. I could imagine that towards the end of the war, that is, the plants which were established by the construction company, which I mentioned before, the supervision of which was carried out by the Research Company and which also placed the money at their disposal - we have not put any money at their disposal - that possibly it had been taken into consideration that the completed enterprises possibly should be managed by any of the offices of D-I or W-I. That is a possibility but it has not been put into effect.
Q. I am not talking about the end of the war. I am talking about the time even prior to these letters. I show you a letter from your office and ask you if this doesn't refresh your recollection as to whether this was not under W-I. You see the last sentence "Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl has ordered that the new company be included in Office W-I. I am referring to Document NO-4071, which I will mark as Prosecution Exhibit 592 for identification -- yes, 592 -- You see that sentence?
A. Yes, I just see the sentence.
Q. Tell me first who wrote this letter. This Dr. Hoffmann?
A. The letter was written by Dr. Hoffmann.
Q. He was on your staff, a legal member of your staff, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have knowledge of this letter or of its contents?
A. No, I don't remember the contents of this letter, but I do remember the following: That was in May 1944. The Deutsche Schieferdel, G.M.B.H., as stated here, was founded on that day, and it is correct that Hauptsturmfuehrer Schwarz was appointed business manager and Obersturmfuehrer Jacobi was appointed prokurist. At the time, the way it used to be was that the questions -
Q. Tell me, who was Schwarz. He was in W-I wasn't he?
A. No, Schwarz did not belong to Staff W.
Q. He wasn't an official in the DEST industries?
A. Yes, that is correct. He was a member of the DEST.
Q. He was under Mummenthey's supervision, wasn't he?
A. He was the business manager of the DEST.
Q. He was under Mummenthey's supervision, wasn't he?
A. Well, yes, he was a co-business manager. He was part of the administration.
Q. Does this letter help your recollection as to whether the oil company was under W-I?
A. I do not believe that there was such a subordination, Mr. Prosecutor, and I would like to be able to explain. At the time when things were in a stage of development, it was expected that a plant should be established soon,. But the negotiations that Pohl had with the Reich Office resulted, as I said before, that the Forschungsgesellschaft, that is the Research Company, and it had the various process which had not been completed as yet -- After all, I am not an expert -- I don't know, that they should take over the supervision of the construction, because as I stated before, there was no factory of the Deutsche Schieferoel, G.M.B.H. I don't believe that Schwarz came into the action. The company contract was nothing but a name.
Q. Excuse me. What do you mean, there wasn't a factory? You mean there wasn't any work carried out at this location -- nothing was done?
A. No, that nothing was done at the responsibility of the Deutsche Schieferoel, G.M.B.H. They were only working under the responsibility of the Research Company, which was part of the Reich Offices, but not under the SS or Staff W, but Herr Dr. Sennewald who is mentioned in one of the letters was competent in one respect as business manager and he was also the scientific or research expert.
Q. What does this mean in the letter of the 4th of December, Exhibit 582 "As already advised by Dr. Sennewald at the conference at the office of Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, all available means are being used, in order to complete Work 2, Works 4, Works 8, Works 9." What is all that if nothing was being done?
A. I believe that it results from this sentence what I stated before because Dr. Sennewald, as I said before, was the business manager and director of the Research Company, which I referred to before, and he,
Q. That is not answering my question. What kind of work were they doing? That's what I asked you.
A. The factories were established.
Q. And construction work was carried out, is that right?
A. I didn't get the word.
Q. Construction work.
A. Construction work, and the establishment of the plant and the D.B.H.G. the Deutsche Bergau und Huettengesellschaft, as is said at the end and were the constructing parties.
Q. Was there any other kind of work being carried out there?
A. I couldn't tell you, because I was never there and I didn't see it.
Q. Before leaving this particular matter, I would like -
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask a question, Mr. Robbins? Perhaps you can answer it better than the witness. Were these experimental plantsthere appear to be four of them -- were they being constructed by the WVHA or any Amt of Amtsgruppe W?
MR. ROBBINS: Can you tell us that, Witness?
THE WITNESS: No, they were not being constructed by the WVHA, but two Reich offices had been interpolated, the Reich Office for Economic Expansion and for Immediate Action and the construction was carried out by Deutsche Bergbau und Huettengesellschaft, which had nothing to do with the WVHA nor with the SS.
THE PRESIDENT: And the plan was that when they were completed then Office W was to take them over under this contract that is referred to in the letter of 2 May and operate them.
THE WITNESS: That's the way it was. The construction had been expected to be completed early, but due to the war, it took much longer and, as far as I know, these factories were not being taken over. It was only after the completion as certain of processing were involved which had first to be experimented on before they could be taken over.
THE PRESIDENT: That's just what I said. When the factories had been built by these two other agencies which were not connected with the WVHA, then Office W-I was to take them over under this treaty or contract and operate them.
THE WITNESS: That is correct. To what extent, however, whether all of them or only part of them, I couldn't tell you.
THE PRESIDENT: Isn't it clear, Mr. Robbins, that the WVHA was not building these plants?
MR. ROBBINS: I don't think that's clear from the documents, Your Honor. It's clear from what the witness says. Here's obviously
Q. I think the thing that is not at all clear to me, Witness, is why it was that it fell to you to make arrangements for the accomodations for the inmates who were being used for the construction detail and also for obtaining the guards. Why did you deal with that?
Why were these reports, extensive reports, sent to the Staff W?
A. The Deutsche Schieferoel, G.M.B.H., that is Jacobi, as Liaison man, could have sent them directly to Pohl, but he had no other agency so he sent it to us, and, as far as obtaining the guards was concerned it was a voluntary action, which came from Dr. Jacobi's initiative.
Q. It was just on an accident that it fell in your hands?
A. No, I didn't say that.
Q. Before leaving this matter, I would like to have you identify one more document concerned with it. This is NO-4079. I will mark this document as Prosecution Exhibit 593. Is this letter signed by the Defendant Volk?
A. That is correct
Q Did you see this letter before?
A That is a file note which the defendant Volk made in his capacity as personal expert, or adviser to somebody. I didn't see that.
Q You told them to take these steps, did you?
A No, I didn't... I rather results from the document, that this order from Pohl went directly to Volk because he has written it as personal adviser.
Q I asked whether you told him to take these steps mentioned in the letter.
A If I had done that he would have written under Staff W, and not as Personal Adviser.
Q I still don't have an answer to my question. Did you tell Volk to take the steps that he refers to in this file note? You can answer that with yes or no.
A I would like to refer to the letter dated 13 December, which I signed. It can be seen from it that Volk, V-o-l-k, applied for seventy-nine men and I signed it.
Q Is the answer to my question yes or no? I still don't know what your answer is.
A I never saw this document, nor did I have anything to do with the document.
Q You didn't have anything to do with the document?
A Not with this document, no.
Q Just tell me yes or no... Did you tell Volk to take the steps that he refers to there?
THE PRESIDENT: Isn't it perfectly plain, Mr. Robbins, from Exhibits 584 and 593, that Volk took it up with Sommer to get the seventy--nine men on the 12th of December, and Baier did the same thing on the 13th. Even the letters are almost alike.
MR. ROBBINS: I think it is clear, Your Honor. I can't understand why I can't get an answer.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: You asked him three times....
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Witness, now you answer this question, and no other question. Did you ever see the letter of 12 December written by Volk? Yes or no?
A The 12th of December?
Q The 12th of December.
A No, I never saw that note.
Q Did you tell Volk to write it, yes or no?
A The letter of the 13th, it is quite possible, because I signed it.
Q I am not talking about the 13th! Just look at the letter of the 12th, signed by Volk. Did you tell him to write it? Can't you answer that?
A I can't recall having asked him to write it.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Can you recall whether you asked him to get in touch with Sommer?
A No, I couldn't know that.
THE PRESIDENT: It isn't important. He doesn't recall having asked him to write the letter.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Now witness, suppose you tell us about other special projects which you were given in your capacity as Chief of Staff W, or in any other capacity that dealt with concentration camps, or concentration camp labor, that you have not already told us about?
A I didn't quite understand the question.
Q Suppose you tell us about other special projects that you were given special assignment in your capacity as Chief of Staff W, or in any other capacity that dealt with concentration camps, or the use of inmate labor?
A Special tasks were given me - excuse me, that tasks were given me to apply for inmates for work; actually, to instigate the work of inmates I don't remember such occurrences.
Q You didn't pass on any orders of Pohl to allocate inmate labor, or dealing with any other concentration camp matters?
A I already stated before, during my direct examination, that I dealt with wages for inmates, that is to say, monetary questions, and also compensation questions, but I don't remember ever having received an order from Pohl to do something about inmate labor assignment, I don't recall. According to my opinion it probably went directly to the plant workers.
Q You told us all of the cases you dealt with, had anything to do with that, that concerned concentration camp labor?
A The inmate wages and the compensation matters ran parallel with the work itself, but I had nothing to do with the labor allocation.
Q Other than the inmate laborers' compensation, so-called, other than that. Did you receive any special assignment? -- (Pause) Witness, can't you remember? Is it possible that you did?
A I really don't remember having received such a special order; it is possible, but I don't know.
Q It is possible?
A I couldn't tell you. Lots of things went through my hands.
Q Do you remember writing to the commandant of Auschwitz on any occasion, about the utilization of inmate labor?
A No, I don't.
Q You don't remember any correspondence in your office about that?
A No, I don't.
Q Let me show you a letter here, addressed to the commandant of Auschwitz, and see if this will help your recollection. This is Document NO-4002, which I will mark as Exhibit 594. Is this letter signed by Volk?
A Yes.
Q Do you remember seeing it?
A No, I never saw the letter, but I participated in the conference as contained in the letter.
Q And you knew about the inmates being allocated to the Technical Development Company, did you not? -- the Company for Technical & Economic Development, called "Getewent"?
A I don't remember the contents of this conference, but it can be seen from here.
Q I show you another document, and see if that will -
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Just a minute, Mr. Robbins. Is that "B-a-e-r" mentioned in this letter, the second paragraph, the defendant?
MR. ROBBINS : No, Your Honor, he was the commandant of Auschwitz concentration camp.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: That's what I thought. I will ask the witness this:
Q The right hand side, at the top of the letter, where the date 21 October 1944 is, what does the notation underneath the date, "Dr. Vk/Mi" what does that mean?
A That means Dr. Volk, and the other one is the name of the secretary whose name was Michel - M-i-c-h-e-l.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q I am going to show you Document NO-3839 which I will mark as Prosecution Exhibit 595. Before going to that document, witness.... you see there that in the letter of the 21st of October 1944, Document NO-4002, it is stated that you participated in the meeting at which the subject of inmate labor allocation was discussed?
A Yes.
Q But you don't remember that today?
A No, I don't.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Robbins, what is the difference between Exhibit 594 and 595, written on the same day, by the same person, to the same person?
MR. ROBBINS: 595 is a duplicate of 594 only for the first letter, Your Honor. The rest of the document contains additional letters and I think perhaps it would be best if I withdrew 4002 as Exhibit 594 and marked the entire document 3839 as Exhibit 594.