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.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Do you see the letter there, witness, which you signed, dated 21 October 1944 to the Commandant of the Auschwitz Concentration Camp?
A You mean the letter dated 21 October, don't you?
Q Yes?
A Yes, I have the letter before me. I signed it.
Q And does this help your recollection any about the conference that took place there on the 18 October?
A Yes, I already confirmed that part.
Q And you now recall that the allocation of labor was discussed, is that right?
A No, I did not remember all those things. I really don't
Q I asked you if you remember now?
A Yes, I do.
Q Tell us, if you will, what kind of work was being carried out here at "Getewent"?
A The "Getewent" was a factory for the production of radio tubes, and similar things. It was not part of the DWB, but were subordinated to the personal supervision of Pohl.
Q It was included in the group of office under Staff-W, wasn't it?
A No, it was not part of Staff-W. It was independent, but all the help that was given them went through Staff-W.
Q You say it was immediately under Pohl?
A It is perhaps not quite correct. It was a company which was closely connected with the Reich Economy Ministry, according to my recollection, because the Reich Economy Ministry was the one that was giving the money. We did not participate in it financially.
Q You see the cable or the telegram from Cords to you, which is part of document 3839?
A Yes, I see the document.
Q Tell us why it was that it was necessary for, or convenient to have a fast way of transmitting messages between you and the Concentration Camp Gross-Rosen? Why is he telling you this?
A Probably the mail communications were already disturbed, as I Court No. II, Case No. 4.see here, the date is 3 March.
In other words, it was pretty close to the end of the war.
Q Was it necessary for you to communicate often with the GrossRosen Concentration Camp?
A That has nothing to do with that, Mr. Prosecutor, You see, this is an information that there is a possibility of communication with the "Getewent" by making an agreement, and that is all the information right here. That is the only thing it shows.
Q That does not answer my question. I ask you if you frequently sent messages to the Concentration Camp Gross-Rosen, or received them?
A Not Concentration Camp Gross-Rosen, possibly, something could have been sent to "Getewent" through the Concentration Camp Gross-Rosen by the radio station. That is the way it is expressed in the letter, too. I don't believe we finally succeeded in doing so, though.
Q You did contact with "Getewent" quite often, didn't you?
A Not often, I would not say.
Q You see your letter of the 31 October 1944 to the "Getewent"?
A Yes, I do.
Q It is initialed by you, is it not, sent out by you?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q This is part of Document NO-3839. Will you read the subject matter: "Sending of an expert in construction of - -" what is that next word?
A I believe it is explained in the letter. It states, "The deputy of the Chief of Office Group C, SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Schleif, was asked to send an expert in construction of adits to Reichenau in order to carry out an expert examination of your intended construction of an air raid tunnel." In other words, for air-raid precaution.
THE PRESIDENT: Tell us what "Adits" means, then we will take a recess. "An expert in construction of adits." What does that mean?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I don't find that passage.
MR. ROBBINS: Your letter to "Getewent" dated 31 October 1944.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: 21st.
MR. ROBBINS: 31st, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: 31st, yes.
MR. ROBBINS: The part you just read.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
THE WITNESS: Yes. The translation is wrong in the document, Your Honor. It should be "Expert in construction of shafts, or tunnels, rather than "audits."
MR. ROBBINS: Shafts?
THE WITNESS: Shafts. This is an expert who builds air raid precaution tunnels, and he is an expert in that manner, and that is all.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes.
(Recess.)
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, was the Getewent Company a part of Amtsgruppe W or an SS industry?
A No.
Q What was the nature of this company?
AAccording to its name it was the company for technical and economical development, and it was included in the program for the production of radio tubes.
Q And can you tell us whether your connection with this matter was in your capacity as Chief of Staff W or was this another special project?
A Well, one can call it a special assignment.
Q And can you give us-- I withdraw the question. Did I understand your testimony to be, witness, that you had never visited a concentration camp?
A No, I testified here that I had inspected the concentration camp Dachau.
Q And is that the only camp you ever visited?
A I only visited plants which were located near concentration camps.
Q Now, let's not have any misunderstanding. I am not talking about the inner circle of a concentration camp. I am talking about the camp generally. I ask you if you ever visited any such camp?
A No, I never entered the protective custody camp.
Q I am not talking about the protective custody camp; I am talking about the concentration camp as a whole.
A I entered plants of concentration camps insofar as they belonged to Amtsgruppe W.
Q Tell us which ones those were.
A I have already stated I was at Oranienburg and at Flossenburg. I was at Mauthausen; I was at Dachau; and I was at Auschwitz.
Q You were several times in the outer ring of the concentration camp Court No. II, Case No. 4.in Sachsenhausen, weren't you?
A I was at Sachsenhausen on two or three occasions.
Q So when you said the other day, yesterday, that you hadn't visited a concentration camp, you just meant the inner circle of the camp?
A I meant the protective custody camp, not the work shops.
Q And you visited; you were inside the outer ring of the camp in Auschwitz?
A I was in the area where the economic enterprises were located.
Q How many times were you there?
A I was in Auschwitz on two occasions.
Q What time; what date?
A Once in January 1944.
Q Then you went to Posen and Litzmannstadt?
A No.
Q A different trip?
A That was a different trip.
Q When else were you in Auschwitz?
AAs far as I can recall, it was a few months later.
Q Did you see inmates working when you were there at Auschwitz, January, 1944?
A Yes, with the DAW. I audited the bookkeeping there, and in the same building there were also some inmates working.
Q The second time was roughly February or March, would you say that?
A Well, I can't give you the exact month.
Q And while you were there you didn't hear anything about a gas chamber or a crematorium?
A No.
Q You know now from the documents from the evidence in the case that at that very time thousands of Inmates were being burned to death there. Was there any conceivable explanation for the fact that you didn't hear about it; you didn't see smoke or smell the burning bodies that have been described here?
A No.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Did you at any time hear that there were gas chambers in concentration camps?
A No, I only heard of it after the war.
Q Did you hear of chambers called delousing chambers?
A Delousing chambers? No.
Q Never heard of that word?
A No. Yes, I did hear the word, however, that refers to real delousing facilities.
Q You didn't ever see in your documents the term "X huts"; that didn't come to your attention?
A The word "expert" is used repeatedly.
Q No, "X huts," "X barracks".
A You mean X barracks? No.
Q You never heard of that term?
A I don't know what it means at all, not even today.
Q And you never heard at any time that crematoria were in concentration camps?
A No.
Q How many times did you visit Mauthausen?
A In Mauthausen? I was there on one occasion. I can still recall the date. This was in the fall or the winter of '43 to '44.
Q It was the first part of 1944, wasn't it?
A I believe that it was at the end of '43. That is more probable.
Q You didn't hear anything there about gassing, at Mauthausen?
A No.
Q Did you see inmates working there?
A Yes. First I went to the bookkeeping department, and afterwards I went through the barracks and I saw inmates and Germans working there.
Q How many times did you visit Flossenburg?
A I was in Flossenburg only once.
Q When was that?
A That must have been in 1945. It must have been in January or February of that year.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q 1945?
A Yes, 1945.
Q Who went with you?
A Dr. Karoli was with me, and as far as I can recall I was also accompanied by Obersturmbannfuehrer Mummenthey.
Q And did you see inmates working there?
A Yes. I have already testified about that yesterday.
Q This was February, 1945. You didn't see anyone at that time who looked underfed or mistreated?
A No. I couldn't see that at all.
Q How many times did you visit Dachau other than the trips that your classes took?
A I was at the Food G.m.b.H. at Dachau, and also at the DAW enterprise which was located in the camp. I was there altogether on two occasions.
Q When was that?
A That was in '43 and '45.
Q What month in '45?
A I think it must have been at the same time when I was at Flossenburg; it must have been around February.
Q And you visited the German Food Company there, the SS enterprise?
A Yes.
Q On both occasions?
A In both cases, yes.
Q And what other SS industry did you visit?
A Well, I also visited the DAW.
Q You didn't see any signs of undernourishment in Dachau in February '45?
A No.
Q How many times did you visit Lublin?
A I didn't see Lublin at all. I don't know the enterprise there at all, and I never visited the Osti there.
Q Never visited any Osti enterprise?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A No.
Q How many times did you visit Stutthof?
A I have never been in Stutthof.
Q Were you ever in Natzweiler?
A No, I wasn't in Natzweiler either.
Q Didn't you visit the outer area in Natzweiler?
A No, I wasn't in that vicinity at all. I don't even know where the place is located.
Q Did you visit Neuengamme?
A No, I have never been in Neuengamme.
Q Did you visit Nordhausen?
A No.
Q Gross-Rosen?
A Yes, I was at Gross-Rosen on one occasion.
Q I thought you said you had told us all the camps that you visited. When were you at Gross-Rosen?
A I was in Gross-Rosen in 1944. I went to take care of some auditing work there.
Q Who went with you on that occasion?
A It must have been an auditor, but I don't recall his name any more.
Q Did you go to Bergen-Belsen?
A No.
Q And do I understand your testimony to be that it was your conviction that all of the inmates who were working for the SS industries were convicted criminals?
A Convicted criminals? No.
Q How do you think they got into the concentration camps?
A I didn't quite understand the last word.
Q How do you think they got into the concentration camps if they weren't convicted, they weren't given a trial? I understood your testimony yesterday to be that you thought that they had all been given a trial.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A Yes, however, I did not consider them criminals because police regulations during the war, after all, were certainly severe.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q You thought that they had all been convicted, is that right, and been given a trial--everyone in the concentration camps and those who were working for the SS industries?
A I had to assume that, yes.
Q You didn't assume when the question of the Litzmannstadt Ghetto was discussed, when it was considered whether or not to turn this place into a concentration camp, the entire city. You didn't consider that all of those people were convicted criminals, did you, convicted and given a trial?
A Well, that is the reason why I considered this measure to be inhumane, and I did everything to prevent it.
Q We will come hack to that again later.
Is that the only case you ever heard of where an entire city was turned into a concentration camp, or was planned to be turned into a camp?
A Yes.
Q Did you think that all of the people who were working for the Osti industry--incidentally, will you turn to a document that we have discussed before, in Book 14; Exhibit 384. It is on page 16 of the German, page 19 of the English. NO-1039. Turn to the place where the purposes of the Osti industry are discussed. This is Hohberg's memoranda describing the various industries. Do you have the description in front of you of the Osti industry, where it says-
A Yes, I have it before me.
Q "... A newly founded company for the exploitation of the balance--" mind you, the balance--" of Jewish property and of Jewish labor in the Government General."
Did you think that all of this Jewish labor in the concentration camps--did you assume that all of these people had been given a trial?
A Well, I assumed that, as far as conditions in Germany were concerned.
Q Well, did you assume it also for conditions outside of Germany, this talking about the Government General? You knew these people were Court No. II, Case No. 4.in concentration camps, didn't you?