A: Yes, they are speaking of preparations.
Q: You didn't know that these experiments were carried out, and that inmates died from this, did you? That didn't come to your knowLedge, I suppose?
A: No, I didn't know that inmztes died.
Q: You heard Dr. Kogon tell about the results of this experiment, didn't you? Do you recall that?
A: Yes, I heard that.
Q: I should like to go on quickly to another matter and ask you to identify this document which I am handing you, NO-3771, which I will mark as Prosecution Exhibit 602. This is about payment for the use of concentration camp inmates in Holland. Did you receive this letter?
A: This letter came in to Staff W. That is correct. In any case, I didn't have knowledge of this letter.
Q: Did you know about payments for a concentration camp Herzogenbusch?
A: No, that is absolutely new to me, and I don't believe I dealt with it. In any case, I can't recall having done so.
Q: You can't give us any information at all about the subject matter here?
A: Yes, I can.
Q: Please do.
A: This is a letter by which the Augleichskasse (Clearing treasury) is informed that ten percent of the inmates' wages -- or rather compensation, it says "wages" here, -- are transferred to the clearing office. And the amount is 1,188.80 Guilders.
Q: And this was a matter which was handled by your Staff, wasn't it?
A: Yes, that clearing treasury was in the Staff.
Q: I want to show you another document and ask you to identify it. It is NO-3766, which I will mark as Prosecution Exhibit 603. This is about the evacuation of SS industries in Lublin and Lemberg. Can you tell us who signed this letter the 19th of October, 1944?
A: I don't know this.
Q: You know the signature?
A: No, I just said I don't know the signature. It is some Unter-Sturmfuehrer, apparently from Office W-4. It should be a doctor.
Q: Do you know anything about the contents of this letter? Did you have knowledge of its subject matter? You knew they were evacuating these plants in Lublin and Lemberg in October, 1944, didn't you?
A: This became known to me, it can be assumed, particularly with reference to the Russian front which was approaching, and the factories were evacuated slowly. I don't know when it was. I really don't know the correct date but -
Q: Excuse me, were you going to say something?
A: Yes. This letter was probably sent from Office W-4 to the agency in Cracow. It could not possibly have gone through Staff W.
Q: Let me show you another document, and ask you if this tells you any more about it. This is NO-3765 which I will mark as Prosecution Exhibit 604. It is about the same subject matter -
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Mr. Robbins, what is 603?
MR. ROBBINS: I have NO-3766 as 603. Does that check with the Secretary-General? And for 604, 3765.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q: Can you tell us anything about this letter, witness?
A: This is also a letter which is a correspondence between Office W-4 and within Office W-4. This is also shown by the initials -- by the signature, rather. It is signed by Dr. H. But actually Staff W had nothing to do with this matter.
Q: Do you know that prisoners of war were employed in these plants, as the letter says?
A: No, I didn't.
Q: You dealt with personnel problems of the SS industries,didn't you? Wasn't that part of your job?
A: No, it was not.
DR. FRITSCH (Counsel for defendant Baier): May it please Your Honor, for technical reasons I would appreciate it if the last few exhibits be compared again. I am not in a position so far to remember all those exhibit numbers in the correct manner.
I have Document 3765, and it is marked as Exhibit Number 604.
THE PRESIDENT: That is right.
DR. FRITSCH: Then Document 3766 marked as Exhibit 604 also -- which is a mistake, of course.
THE PRESIDENT: Six-zero-three.
DR. FRITSCH: Thank you very much; that is all.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Do you remember making this statement to the interrogator on the 14th of October, '46? "I was in charge of personnel questions, salaries, establishing and examining of calculations, plant accounts, and other problems of business management generally."
A: Yes. When we did auditing work in the Auditing Department we all had to deal with questions which referred to wage scales and salary questions of the employees.
That is part of the auditing.
Q: But it didn't come to your attention that prisoners of war were employed in these plants in Lublin? Just yes or no. You can answer that briefly.
A: No, I can't remember that.
Q: Witness, will you tell us why it was that the defendant Klein left the WVHA in his Office W-8?
A: The defendant Klein left Office W-8 upon Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl's orders. He was released.
Q: Give us the reason please.
A: The reason was an auditing report which was submitted to Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl. The Auditing Department wrote that auditing report, and I was in charge of that Auditing Department. That is the way it was. Is that sufficient?
Q: Is that all you can say about it?
A: I could give you a lot more. Do you want me to say some more?
Q: It was not because of any embezzlement or irregularities in his work, was it?
A: When auditing we did find irregularities which, however, for the largest part, were due to his employees, but he was responsible for it, and all those things were compiled in that report and Pohl took note of it.
Q: And that was the reason he was discharged, wasn't it?
A: The moment I heard about it, yes.
Q: It wasn't because he asked for a transfer to the front, was it?
A: That was something that had nothing to do with it.
After all, if a soldier is to go to the front line, then I imagine he will receive the order to go to the front line.
Q: It wasn't because he was opposed to National Socialism, was it?
A: At the time, I knew nothing about it.
Q: You knew, didn't you, that he was a very ardent Party member?
A; I knew Klein too little to be able to estimate that. I couldn't tell you. I had no personal relationship with Klein with the exception of those official ones.
Q: Can you tell us the reason why Hohberg left his position?
A: Mr. Prosecutor, I couldn't tell you that. It would be a hypothetical answer. After all, I arrived months after Dr. Hohberg had left, and I really didn't know the man. During my official activity I only saw him there on two occasions, and then very briefly. By merely studying the files it was not possible to gain an impression of the whole matter. I don't even know him today.
Q: You didn't learn that the Ministry of Finance or the Ministry of Economics had ordered that another auditor take over the work, as Karoli told us an the stand? Can you confirm or --
A: All those things which Karoli testified to here as a witness were somewhat known to me; not very clearly because, after all, I was not a legal man nor was I a certified auditor, so that I really was not too clear about the entire idea. I couldn't gain a clear impression nor did I gain it.
But that certain things were going on -- in other words, that there were certain rumors in the air I heard from hearsay.
THE PRESIDENT: A good stopping point, Mr. Robbins? We will have a recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes. (A recess was taken).
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, did you learn at any time about any property of any kind that was operated or used in any way -- (interruption) Witness, did you hear or learn at any time about property of any kind that was operated or used in any way by the Amtsgruppe W, or any of the industries affiliated with Amtsgruppe W, which property had been taken without compensation from foreign nationals?
AAll the properties of Office Group W, as far as I know, were appropriated through payments. If before that they were seized, I don't know.
Q Appropriated through what?
AAll the property in Office Group W -- that is to say that it belonged to the various enterprises, had been purchased. Just what happened to the previous owner, I can not tell you.
Q You don't know of any instance where the owner was not compensated, is that what you are testifying?
A Yes, after all, we would have discovered that when we did our auditing work, with the exception of the Reich. In the year 1943 or the year 1944, when I checked the balance sheets I found out that made certain services available gratuitously which later on were paid to the Reich.
THE PRESIDENT: Paid to the Reich?
MR. ROBBINS: I think that is what he said.
WITNESS: Yes, paid to the Reich.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q What about the owners, foreign nationals, were they paid?
A I assume that they were paid. I don't know of any case, at least during the time I worked there, when any property was taken away from a foreigner without receiving compensation for it.
Q You don't think for a moment, do you, that the property that was operated by OSTI which had been taken from the Jews was paid for ... you didn't think that, did you?
A Oh, yes, the OSTI purchased every property, which it administered. And that was listed in the balance sheets.
Q And you believe that the Jews were paid for the property?
A I was not able to look into that matter at the time. I was unable to see that at the time. However, I knew that confiscations took place generally in the East.
Q You told us that the firm Getewent was not under the control of the SS. I would like to show you a document which is NO-4253. I don't have the translation on it here. I would like to ask you if you can tell from this document whether or not that testimony is correct. Is this your signature on the letter?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Doesn't it say that Himmler has authorized Pohl to take over the company?
A Yes, that intention existed. However, this enterprise was never actually taken over until the end of the war.
Q When did that occur?
A That was in January 1944. However, this enterprise was not taken over until the end of the war.
Q When was that? January 1944 it was taken over?
A Yes, it was in January 1944.
Q You told us a while ago that it was not affiliated with the SS, and it was not an SS industry? Let's go onto another matter, witness. Are there any other medical experiments that you learned about?
A I don't know.
Q Did you hear about any experiments with poisonous foods?
A Not within my official sphere.
Q I did not ask you if it was within your field of task. I asked you if you heard about the experiments?
A No.
Q Did you hear about any kind of food experiments?
A I heard of food experiments. I knew that certain canned foods were produced for troops. However, that was strictly a military matter.
Q You did not hear about any experiments on inmates in that connection?
A No, I did not hear anything about it.
Q You did not hear about any other experiment of any kind on concentration camp inmates?
A No.
MR. ROBBINS: I should like to mark the document that I have just shown the witness, NO-2453, as Exhibit No. 605. I shall have it translated and copied in German.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, when you had the conversation with Pohl in March 1937. prior... Witness, did you say that you had heard about other medical experiments, or that you had not heard about it?
A In 1937?
Q No, at any time, did you hear about any other experiments on concentration camp inmates that you have not told us about?
A I don't know of any other ones.
Q When you had the conversation with Pohl in March 1937. did you arrange for an appointment with Pohl, or, did he ask you to come and see him. You remember that conference that you had?
AAs I have already stated in my testimony before, I had never corresponded or talked to Pohl about these things. After all we were separated from each other, and one day unexpectedly I received a letter from him. However, before that time I did not discuss the matter with him.
Q You remember the conference you had in March 1937 with Pohl that you told us about. You know what conference I am talking about, don't you?
A In 1937?
Q Well, before you joined the SS?
A In March 1937? Yes. Yes, it is possible that I went to see Pohl at the time. However, I can not recall it at the moment. In March 1937?
Q Well, at the time you discussed your joining the SS, being transferred to the SS?
A No. However, I heard about that before. I heard about it all in the Fall of 1936 in writing.
Q What was the letter that you received in 1936?
A It was a handwritten letter in which Pohl informed me that he needed a man to be in charge of the SS Administrative School, which he intended to establish. Since he considered me a good teacher, he wanted to have me transferred from the Navy to the SS-Verfuegungstrupue. He asked if I agreed with that transfer.
Q What did you say?
A I told him that I agreed to the proposition.
Q So that when you were transferred to the SS, you were transferred with your consent?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q You were not forced to join the SS? You were not forced then to join or go to the SS?
A I was transferred as a soldier from the Navy to the SS-Verfuegungstruppe. However, I was not compelled to do so.
Q However, at that time the SS was not drafting persons either out of the Navy, or civilians, is that right?
A Nobody was conscripted.
Q You told us that you were a member of the Party through 1933. until when?
A 1933 I entered the Party, and when I was assigned to the Navy I again had to leave the Party as a soldier.
Q Did you resign from the Party, or officially leave if, formally?
AAt the time I had to leave the Party, and when I was transferred to the SS-Verfuegungstruppe I had to re-enter the Party.
Q You rejoined the Party, didn't you? That is something you did not tell us in your direct examination. You became a member of the Party again, didn't you?
A Yes, The Party membership was suspended during the time I was with the Navy, and again it was renewed when I came to the SS-Verfuegungstruppe.
Q You retained your Party number which was somewhere in the two-thousand five-hundred, didn't you?
A Yes, I maintained the same Party number.
Q Do you remember that it was in the two-thousand five-hundreds; two-thousand five-hundred and seventy--two?
A Yes, I can recall that.
MR. ROBBINS: I have no further questions.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I did not hear the last answer. Will the witness, perhaps, tell us his Party number once more.
THE PRESIDENT: 2,572.
MR. ROBBINS: As a matter of fact - -
THE WITNESS: 2,572,143.
MR. ROBBINS: Two million five hundred thousand, is that right?
THE WITNESS: 2,572,173. I just happened to have it before me.
THE PRESIDENT: That is pretty close.
DR. FICHT: Dr. Ficht for the defendant Klein.
BY DR. FICHT:
Q. Witness, I only went to ask you a few questions with regard to the auditing report which allegedly was the reason for the dismissal of the defendant Klein. I now would like to ask you the following questions. Do you know that at the time when the auditing work was ordered with regard to the business of Klein, an investigation was under way against Klein because his sister had been arrested by the Gestapo because she had made hostile statements towards the State, and, Klein at the time had looked at the files of his sister with the Gestapo, which he was not authorized to do?
AAt the time when the auditing work was carried out, sofar as I recall, I did not know anything about all these facts.
Q Do you know that Klein himself requested this auditing to be done?
A Yes. I can even tell you from my recollection that the auditing department was asked by me whether any personnel was available in order to carry out this auditing work, because Klein as a lieutenant in the reserves wanted to go to the front. I can remember that exactly. Before going to the front, he wanted to be able to justify himself as office chief of the auditing department.
However, the department did not have an auditor available at that time who could have given him a proper certificate at the time; to say that he had performed his business duties properly would have required a duly appointed auditor. Inspite of this, however, Klein insisted that the auditing should be carried out.
Q Witness, could I sum up and say, that he requested an audit to be carried out at the time when it was determined that he had to go to the front?
AAt least, he wanted to go to the front. Whether it was quite certain he would go to the front I can not say. However, I knew he was to go to the front.
Q And is it correct he made an application at the time that an auditing was to be carried out?
A Yes, he made a request that an audit was to be carried out, and the auditing work was carried out in this scope of examination of official documents of the organization.
Q You have stated in answer to a question by the Prosecution that the irregularities which were discovered had resulted, in the first place, from negligence of the employees for whom Klein, as office chief, was responsible. Can you tell us of what these irregularities consisted in detail?
A Yes, I can tell you that. The auditor had found out that, for example, the stores showed certain deficiencies. It was very clumsily established and something was wrong with the index file. In particular it was not up to date. In construction expenses for dwelling houses too much money had been spent in excess of the budget.
Q Witness, may I ask you one more question about the general question of the stores. Were there any instructions in effect for the W offices in just what way the stores were to be administered?
A No, there were no matters which dealt with commercial law. That wasn't the case at all. Here the auditor had to make the decision according to his own judgment and I can state that here it was primarily the fault of Klein's colleagues who were subordinated to him.
Q That is sufficient for me. I have no further questions.
DR. FROESCHMANN (Counsel for the defendant Mummenthey):
Q I only have two questions to ask the witness as a result of the cross examination. Witness, the cross examination has shown that you visited Auschwitz. Did you see the enterprises of the DEST there?
A Yes, I saw them.
Q Of what did these enterprises, plants, and workshops consist?
A May I point out that I visited Auschwitz in the winter time. I looked at the gravel works and they were far away from the camp -- in a river bed. The plants were located near the river bed. Therefore, they didn't actually have workshops. However I saw how all the machines that brought up the gravel were laid up over the winter time to be used again when the warmer season started. I remember that.
Q Therefore, they removed the gravel from the river bed?
A Yes.
Q Did you see anything or did you hear anything about the fact that the DEST in Auschwitz had a sand pit or a gravel pit?
A No.
Q Did you talk with the plant manager Rupprecht there?
A Yes, I met him on that occasion.
Q What impression did you gain of Rupprecht?
A I gained a rather good impression of Rupprecht not only because he had been praised by Mummenthey but because I could see from my auditing work what his character was and that he was a decent man. That is the impression I gained at that time.
Q Did you see any inmates who worked in enterprise DEST?
A No. This workshop was not in operation. I only saw the office barracks at the time.
Q Was this barracks the office of the DEST?
A This barracks contained the offices of this enterprise.
Q In this office of the DEST were there any female Jewish inmates?
A Yes, I can remember that.
Q Did you meet these Jewish inmates later on, and if, yes, where?
A Yes. I and Mummenthey met them again later on. Whether Mummenthey saw them before I don't know. I don't think so. I was there without being accompanied by Mummenthey.
Q I am not referring to that time but later on and in order to refresh your memory I want to mention the name of Neurolav to you. Can you remember having seen these inmates again there?
A Yes. I was informed about that and I wanted to continue and say that at the time in Auschwitz I was all by myself when I saw these Jewish inmates, approximately February 1945. It was on a Sunday and I happened to be present at Neurolav. Mummenthey and I had several discussion and I was on the way back. Because transportation conditions were so bad there I accompanied Mummenthey and we saw these female Jewish inmates again. As far as I remember there were only two. Do you want me to explain the details?
Q No, that is not necessary. I have one final question in this connection. Were those female Jewish inmates at liberty at Neurolav?
A Yes they were at liberty - could go around and wore civilian clothes. They had arrived together with Rupprecht whom I saw again there. He had arrived from Auschwitz and were evacuated from the approach of the Russian Army to find a new place of work if possible at all. We also talked to them about the question; it was not very nice since other civilians were present.
Q And now my second question. As a matter of fact I have only two more questions I will ask you. In Document Book 19 of the Prosecution Document Book we find on page 65 Document NO 1271 which the Prosecution has shown you today. It is Exhibit 491. This is a report on Osti by Fischer. Now I only want to ask you one question. What is the meaning of the words in this report "through SS-obersturmbannfuehrer Mummenthey in April 1944 I received the order to carry out the auditing of the Osti". Have you found this phrase?
A Yes.
Q How can these words "through ss-obersturmbannfuchrer Mummenthey" be understood or how can you explain these words?
A I think that these words mean that the auditor Fischer had been ordered by Mummenthey to carry out auditing work. I have to assume that. And that he was given leave in order to carry out this work. Perhaps this was only a gesture to express this because Mummenthey could not order him to carry out any auditing work.
Q May I elaborate somewhat on your last answer or you meaning telling me that Mummenthey could not give Fischer an order to audit Osti?
A Yes, just put him probably on leave status.
DR. FRACHT (Counsel for defendant Hohberg):
Q Witness, in the direct examination you were asked why being in the WVHA you did not become the director of the concern - but that you became chief of Staff W - and your answer to that question was that you became chief of Staff W because you were SS officer with senior rank in that office.
Can you still remember that answer you made?
A I have given so many answers today that I can't remember the exact text.
Q I jotted down your answer at the time and I am reading it to you once more now literally "Do you mean the most Senior officer in the Staff? Yes. " Your defense counsel asked you "Why were you not put in charge of auditing department. He asked why you became chief of Staff W instead and you answered "I become chief of Staff W because I was SS officer with the senior rank."
A Yes, that is correct. That is what I said. I was Senior officer in the Staff. However, this wasn't the reason I was appointed chief. That is another question.
Q In some other connection you stated that by virtue of your military position as chief of Staff W you had the possibility to place yourself between Pohl and the W officers.
A I was besides Pohl and in auditing work I had a collective assignment and with this collective assignment I could carry out my work in the auditing department.
Q I didn't want you to tell me that, witness. I wanted you to tell me whether you had the possibility to place yourself between Pohl and the W offices by virtue of your military position, as you stated at the time, as chief of Staff W?
A What do you mean, what connection? By virtue of military order?
Q Witness, I mean that you could interfere at all. In this trial you tell us that Staff W was not a superior agency but that it was on the same level as other W offices. However, in another connection you stated you had the possibility of being in military position as chief of Staff W to place yourself between Pohl and the remaining W offices?
A I could give that order by virtue of my rank. However, I don't know if the order was carried out; after all the business management was subjected to the provisions of Commercial Law.
Q As I put that to you now I only wanted to know whether I understood your testimony correctly, if I draw the conclusion from that that the chief of Staff W had a military function on in your case an SS function and consequently for the position of Chief of Staff W the prerequisite was the membership in the SS or the Party and he had to be an SS officer.
A: Yes; in my case it was so that I was an SS officer and I became the Chief of Staff W.
Q: I then have one further question which I would like you to clarify. Your last rank which you held was an Oberfuehrer in the SS.
A: That is correct.
Q: Now, according to military law you were then the superior, not the disciplinary superior, but the superior of all persons who held a rank lower than you had?
A: No, that is not correct.
Q: Are there any other regulations in the SS than those which apply in the army?
A: No. The company commander of the 72nd Company, since he has a higher rank than the lieutenant of the 73rd, isn't therefore his superior. After all, there must be some relation and my relation was the staff. You must not forget that Commercial law and official affairs easily overlap in this case.
Q: Witness, in this connection I am not interested in commercial law. I am only interested in whether you, in the military field, as Oberfuehrer, you were the superior of an Obersturmbannfuehrer. From the military point of view.
A: No, I just held a higher rank. I just held a higher rank.
DR. FRACHT : I was a soldier too, and my opinion differs from yours.
I have no further questions.
DR. FRITSCH (for the defendant Baler): Your Honor, I believe that the last question has remained so fresh in our memory that I can begin with it now.
BY DR. FRITSCH:
Q: Witness, if a Major meets a non-commissioned officer in the street, and this NCO does not salute him, what can the major do in that case?
A: Well, he will put him on the spot, and he will tell him off; however, he cannot punish him if he is not his disciplinary superior. He has to address himself to the disciplinary superior of that soldier.
Q: Was the WVHA a military unit?
A: Yes, on the whole.
Q: Could you compare it with a regiment or a battalion of a company?
A: No.
Q: Well, what kind of a unit was it?
A: It was a ministerial agency. It consisted of various agencies whose members were civilian personnel and soldiers.
Q: And because this organization was established in that manner, and because it was not a military unit -in order to maintain military discipline just what was established there?
A: Well, a staff company was established.
Q: What was that, exactly?
A: As you have already said, that seems to be the most appropriate expression -- that was the company. Here the company commander had disciplinary authority over all members of that company.
Q: And was the military point of view represented in that organization?
A: Yes, that is how it was.
Q: If you -- let's use an example: Let us say that your auditor "X" at the same time happens to be a non-commissioned officer.