Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A The German Wehrmacht consisted of 4 components. They were: 1. The German Army, 2. the Luftwaffe or Air Force, 3. the Navy and 4. the Waffen SS.
Q Is it, therefore, correct that we must strictly differentiate between the General SS and the Waffen SS?
A I would like to point out something else to the Tribunal. While studying the large number of documents I saw that the expression "SS enterprise" was very often used. However, in the economic enterprises of the SS, in particular at the top level of the economic enterprises, there were many men who never were able to figure out the concept quite clearly and never thought about it much.
Q Witness, that is sufficient for me. What was the General SS?
A The General SS was a component of the Party.
Q And the Waffen SS?
A The Waffen SS was a component of the German Wehrmacht and consequently belonged to the German Reich.
Q With regard to the question of SS enterprises, I want to ask you the following questions. When was an enterprise called an Army enterprise?
A I never occupied myself with that question at all. Since you ask me this question without any preparation I don't want to make any definition at this time. However, by an Army enterprise I would mean an enterprise which is directed by members of the Amy, whose capital has been furnished by the German Reich and which only employs members of the Army.
Q Witness, can we conclude from the fact that Pohl filled the top positions with members of the Waffen-SS that this was an SS enterprise or can you name another agency of the Reich to me which also placed emphasis on the fact that members of the SS or SA were to be employed in that agency?
A I can name the agency of the Reich Commissioner for the Strengthening of German Folkdom where only members of the SS were employed. The SS Operational Main Office, the FHA, which was the Headquarters of the Waffen Court No. II, Case No. 4.SS, only employed members of the Army.
Q Can we conclude from the fact that in the SS enterprise and the subsidiary companies of the DWB concentration camp inmates were used in some of the plants, that this is an indication that they were SS enterprises?
A No, the enterprises which were under the supervision of the WVHA, according to my estimation, only employed 5 to 10% inmates while 90% of the inmates would have been taken away from the German industry if we had employed inmates. If I answered this question in the affirmative then the conclusion could be drawn that the entire German industry was an SS enterprise.
Q Was the DWB part of the Office Administration and Economy?
A No.
Q Did the DWB pursue the business policy of getting as much work as possible out of the inmates and to save as many expenses as possible?
AAs far as my field of work was concerned and from whatever passed through my hands I was unable to determine whether such a policy existed. I have already stated that Pohl placed no particular value on money.
Q Did the DWB have an interest in employing concentration camp inmates in the enterprises?
A I can't answer that question at all. The business policy was directed exclusively by Pohl. Pohl never called me to any conferences when this question was discussed. I was a Prokurist in the DWB and the impression might easily arise that by virtue of my position I might have been informed about the business policy. However, no consideration is given to the fact that as a Prokurist I could not exert any influence on the business management. I was a Prokurist and I could only handle legal matters for the DWB, G.m.b.H. My field of tasks was limited to such an extent that I was unable to get any insight into the general business policy. I have stated explicitly that I had to handle the tasks of the enterprise with a limited liability, G.m.b.H, that is to say that fundamentally I was not working for the concern.
Q When was Staff W established?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A Staff W was established in my opinion in the middle of 1941.
Q Is it therefore correct to say that Staff W existed already before the WVHA was established?
A Yes.
Q At the time was Office Group W already in existence?
A Office Group W was not in existence. We already had W offices at the time but our office group was established when the WVHA was founded in the year 1942.
Q Please take a look at Document Book 14 on page 82. Your Honors, that is page 85 in the English text of Document Book 14. It is Document NO 854, Exhibit 401. Is the description in this document about the functions of Staff W correct?
A This business order bears the date of 24 November 1944.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, it is perfectly clear that this order of procedure never went into effect. It was announced in November 1944, was to be effective 4 January 1945, but they never got around to it. So, don't waste much time on it.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I shall now go on to the next point.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Please explain to the Tribunal the organization of Staff W.
A Staff W was organized in the following manner: The chief of Staff W had to deal with the finance, tax and organizational matters and had to consult Pohl in these matters. This task was the most important one according to the way it had to be carried out and according to its extent. Under the Chief of Staff W or, later on, the Chief W, there were four smaller departments. They were Department 1 - Taxation and Finance Matters. It was directed by Dr. Wenner and he, therefore, worked together very closely with Dr. Hohberg and later Oberfurhere Baier.
Department 2 was the legal department. I was in charge of it, and besides one legal expert for a short time I also had another legal expert working there. In short, there were two lawyers there for a certain period of time.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q When did you go in to Staff W?
A I entered Staff W in the year 1941. That was when I returned from Prague. It was approximately on the 20th or the 21st of July, 1941, Your Honor.
In 1941 the staff was already organized in exactly the same way as it was after the establishment of WVHA. I shall refer to that later on.
I was in charge of Department 2. I had two legal experts, and for a short time, I had a young assistant.
Department 3 was the Administrative Department, which, however, was only competent for the top level enterprises, in this case, the G.m.b.H.
Then we had Department 4 which was the so-called Auditing Department. It carried out the auditing of the subsidiary companies and also of the holding companies.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Was Staff W identical with the DWB?
A No, the concept Staff W included much more than the concept DWB, GMBH. In Staff W there were several other companies incorporated and they were directly subordinated to Pohl. They were not subordinated to Staff W.
Count No. II, Case No. 4.
The employees of several of these enterprises also were members of Staff W. These were all the employees who lived or worked in the same group of buildings where Staff W was located. That is to say, the Building and Real Estate, GMBH, and the Cooperative House and Home Building, GMBH. That is also shown on page 117 of Document Book 14. It is paragraph 1, the second sentence, and the following is stated here. It is on page 117 in the German text. It is document NO-2178. I don't have the Exhibit number, Your Honor.
Q It is Exhibit 403.
A I quote the second sentence:
"Henceforth the administration and all employees of the Building and Real Estate GMBH, and the Cooperative House and Home Building GMBH, Dachau, belong wholly to Staff W."
Therefore, if no special regulation had been issued to that effect, then, of course, they would have belonged to Staff W already before. The document bears the date of the 1st of July, 1943. The German Heilmittle GMBH did not belong to Staff W. It was located in Prague, and later on, the Osti did not belong to Staff W, either.
I want to refer to this more in detail later on.
In my opinion, the business order also proves what I have just stated. It is in Document Book 14 on page 85 of the German Text. It is document NO-854.
Q Exhibit 401.
AAnd I want to quote Paragraph 10:
"The Prokurists and employees of the DWB also belong to Staff W."
This statement makes it quite clear that Staff W included more than just the employees of the DWB. Also, with regard to the field of tasks, a difference existed. Staff W did not direct the enterprises, but it only carried out a consulting activity. Other companies approached Staff W - let us say like a general director used the employees of a holding company for his consultation and he also consulted with persons who are outside of this holding company, let us say, business men or legal experts who have special experience in the economic field.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q You have already stated that since August or September, 1941, you were a member of Staff W. What position did you occupy in Staff W?
A First of all, I was a legal collaborator. When Staff W was divided up into various departments, I was put in charge of the Legal Department since I was the only legal expert. At that time, no legal expert was subordinated to me. As I have already stated, in the year 1942, a second legal expert was added because I was unable to handle all the work by myself. In the year 1942 I became the personal consultant of Pohl. I want to go into detail about that question later on.
Q Did you have any disciplinary authority?
A No.
Q Could you give any military instructions to your collaborators?
A No.
Q Can you give us the reasons for that?
A When I came to Staff W I was an Untersturmfuehrer, a Second Lieutenant. I received this rank because of my education. Some time later on, I became a 1st Lieutenant, an Obersturmfuehrer. That was in the year 1941. I received my last promotion in the year 1942. At that time I became a Hauptsturmfuehrer which corresponds to the rank of a Captain. My collaborators were Hauptsturmfuehrers, Obersturmfuehrers, and, in my department, the other legal expert was also a Hauptsturmfuehrer. Therefore, since I held the same rank as he, I could not give him any military orders. Dr. Hohberg, the Chief of Staff W, I could not give orders to because he was a civilian employee. Baier was an Oberfuehrer and he held a very high rank. I certainly could not give him any military orders.
Q What were the tasks of the Legal Department when you were working there?
A The Legal Department had the task to carry out all notary tasks and to prepare them. It had to prepare various resolutions of stockholders and it had to prepare the stockholders' meetings of the AG. Furthermore, it had to handle all legal affairs for the DWB, GMBH. That is to say, it did not do that for the concern. It also had to work on the various contracts. It had to deal with all the legal matters of the enterprises Court No. II, Case No. 4.which did not possess their own legal departments.
It also had to mediate for the employees and it had to deal with working conditions and it had to negotiate with the Reich agencies. It only did that work on behalf of the employees - that is to say, the free civilian workers, and it also had to work out their contracts. It had nothing to do with the working conditions of the inmates. In order to make the matter clear to the Tribunal, I would like to discuss a document which shows the work of the Legal Department very clearly. This is Document NO-1039 in Document Book 14.
Q Your Honor, it is Exhibit 384 and is on page 19 of the English text in Document Book 14.
A This document bears the title "Unfinished Works of Staff W", and now I want to quote from Article 2:
"The transfer of the trusteeship to some other trustee in case of death of Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl must be set forth by a will."
"5. The approval of the Reich Minister of Economics must be requested for the increase of the various capitals of the branch-associations of the DWB."
"8. The property 171a Hohenzollerndamm which was acquired by the chemist van den Berg, carries a National Emigration Tax mortgage, the amount of money for it was deposited with a notary. Redemption of this mortgage is to be demanded."
"10. With regard to the stop of contracts for exclusion of profits provided by the Reich Finance Ministry, it is recommended to conclude the contract for exclusion of profits between DWB - Clinker Cement Company at Golleschau before the end of the year."
"11. A great number of contracts for members of the boards of directors and business managers are not yet concluded or must be renewed."
"25. Ehrenburg's property statement must be made very soon. Ehrenburg lives on the premises at Berlin-Wannesee, 27/29 Hugo-Vogelstreet without paying any rent, while all the expenses are being borne by the DWB."
These approximately are the tasks of the Legal Department.
A typical example is contained in one document - that is on page 29 Court No. II, Case No. 4.to 32 of the German text in Document Book 14.
It is Document NO-1261.
Q Exhibit 385, Your Honor.
A This document gives a typical example and it shows the procedure of the Legal Department. On the basis of organizational changes, suggestions were made by the Legal Department to Pohl for the appointment and dismissal of various people and the Chief of Staff W Hohberg would list the name and then a legal draft would be sent to Pohl. Negotiations were prepared. The notary and not the legal department then carried out this legal act. Therefore, the document states literally in paragraph 2:
"I ask you, Gruppenfuehrer, to decide whether you agree to the following proposals so that I can make arrangements with a notary."
I could not carry out the negotiations because a notary is required according to German law. According to German Law, only through notaries can business managers, be appointed and a notary public is required to carry out the legal functions.
THE PRESIDENT: We'll take the usual recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. The Prosecution has described you as a legal expert on Staff W. Is that a correct designation?
A. I don't know what the Prosecution means by that. Under German law you mean by that a man who comments on laws and interprets them. I had nothing at all to do with such questions, because I only was concerned with questions of civil law in business matters. Pohl had a number of other legal experts of a higher rank, such as in the Reich Sector, which are Office Groups A through D, he had the Chief of the Legal Department A-III SS Oberfuehrer Dr. Salpeter. His rank was equivalent to that of a colonel; then for a time, Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Bartlness, who advised him in party matters, that is to say, in matters pertaining to the Allgemeine SS. He was also advised by Attorney Dr. Wilhelm Schneider, who as an SS Sturmbannfuehrer and a staff officer. For some time he had SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Stock, an attorney who wore the golden party badge, and he advised him on legal matters. As far as court matters were concerned, SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. SchmidtKlewenow was responsible, who has been here as a witness.
Q. Did you have the authority to issue orders to the various offices of Office Group W, or the various companies which were part of the DWB?
A. No.
Q. Were you able to issue military orders to the various office chiefs?
A. No.
Q. Perhaps you can explain this on the chart which is here on the wall.
A. In Office W-I, we had as Office Chief, SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Mummenthey. I was Hauptsturmfuehrer. Mummenthey was Lt. Colonel. Of course, I couldn't give him any orders. Dr. Bobermin was Chief in Office W-II. He was of a higher rank and I couldn't give him any or ders.
In W-III there was Moeckel. He was a Senior Colonel. I wonder what would have happened to me if I had given him an order. In office W-IV, we had Sturmbannfuehrer Opperbeck, who was a staff officer and then it says Dr. May, but he was one rank above me. In V was SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Vogel. He was a Lt. Colonel and I was a captain. I couldn't tell him anything. In W-VI there was SS Sturmbannfuehrer Lechler, who was a staff officer. SS Sturmbannfuehrer Mischke was a staff officer and SS sturmbannfuehrer Klein was at last with the Allgemeine SS in the rank of a Lt. Colonel. I couldn't tell him anything. From that list it becomes unequivocally clear that I could not tell these office chiefs anything.
Q. Did you have any influence on the business management of the companies under the DWB?
A. No, first of all, as I have explained, I had nothing to do with business management. I only had to deal with legal matters. Secondly, as I said just now, the business managers had a higher rank than I had and they wouldn't have let me tell them about their business.
Q. Were you at one time Chief of Staff W?
A. No.
Q. Please look at a document in Document Book XIV, which is on page 117. If it please the Tribunal, it is in the English Document Book on page 135. It's the Document NO-2178, which is Exhibit 403. Does this letter not contradict your testimony which you gave us just now?
A. No. Dr. Hohberg, before he was called up to the Wehrmacht, had a month's leave. On the 30th of June, 1943, he left us. Oberfuehrer Baier started his duties only on 1 August, 1943, or was to start his work on that date, but as he had to do the auditing in the administrative school, he couldn't start before. Pohl called together all employees of Staff W and told them this: "Now that Dr. Hohberg has left us Standartenfuehrer Baier takes over the leadership of Staff W. Up to that day day, Dr. Volk will handle the business so that somebody is there who keeps things going."
But it was quite clear from the beginning that I was not to become Chief of W. This document, incidentally, is a copy. The original is certainly signed with I.V., which means as deputy, because in that month I signed the letters which I had written making it quite clear that I was only deputizing. That this document is a copy becomes quite clear from the document, because it says there D.V. My name is not fully written out. I think probably I corrected the original, but not the copy. This was on the first day of my new duties. That becomes clear from the date, 1 July 1943. Moreover, the letter was taken by the secretary of Dr. Hohberg, who was later taken over by Oberfuehrer Baier, which becomes clear from the dictation mark, "KUE". That is Fraulein Kuehl, who was not my secretary.
Q. Were you at any time office chief?
A. No. Dr. Hohberg on cross-examination was shown a document where he signed in his handwriting, "Chief of Staff W, Dr. Volk." Of that document I have never had the slightest inkling. I never saw that document. It was only here in the dock that I heard first about this document. I did not know anything about this document and I can't understand to this day why Dr. Hohberg called me an office chief. If I may say something about the document, in Volume XIV, Dr. Hohberg has interpreted the document as follows: That there the term of Chief of Staff was introduced for the first time. That is not correct, because other documents have shown that. Moreover, if I had become Chief of Staff W I would not have said, I quote: "By order of the Obergruppenfuehrer I have taken over the tasks of Dr. Hohberg as Chief of W, as of today," but I would have said, "By order of the Obergruppenfuehrer, I have become Chief of Staff W, as of today." That is how one would put it in German. The term "task" shows that I was not Chief of W, which I couldn't be. I was far too low in rank.
Q. What activity did you do in that transition period after Hohberg had left and before Baier started?
A. As I said before, my activity was of a temporary nature and on the whole I was only a stand-in and it did not make any difference to the work I had been doing before. I did not actually fulfill the function of the Office Chief. I did not do that for the reason that in order not to anticipate the new man's wishes, in that brief period of time in this enormous complexity of financial entanglements between various offices, I could not get used to it in a short time.
This also becomes clear from document NO-1039 in Book 14, which is Exhibit 384, and is on page 19 of the English Document Book. I don't think Your Honors need look at this document. We have been discussing it before. It is called, "Unfinished Work of Staff-W". This paper has been signed by Dr. Hohberg, and Pohl, and was given by Pohl to Baier immediately on the 1st day of August. Baier's entry into the office was delayed a few days, I believe. He started only on 9 August. I never saw this paper before. It shows the work which was to be done by the office chief, and I would have been given this paper in order to complete the work which had not been finished.
Q. The Prosecution has submitted that Hohberg had been the first Chief of Staff-W, and then after him, Baier. That is page 1009 of the German transcript, is that correct?
A. That is entirely correct.
Q. How many companies were there in the DWB concern?
A. How many companies formed the DWB concern? I am not able to tell you at the moment. Perhaps I should say under the supervision of WVHA there were about fifty companies.
Q. Please take the document, it is on page 6, of volume 14. It is NO-551, and it is Exhibit No. 382, and there you have the list of the companies. Is that list complete?
A. No.
Q. What companies are missing?
A. I have made a rough list of the companies, because I have been allowed to reflect on this medium for six months. Those that are missing are the companies - for the Combatting of Epidemics, the German Company for Advertisement on Letter Boxes, the Meat and Sausage Factory AG, at Koditz, Apaunia A.G., Milano; Prague Bau, A.G.; Appollinaris Betriebs GmbH; Kumerle, Prague. The German Furniture Works. The German Company for Recreation Homes in Berlin. Lumbeck Forschungs-und Versuchsanstalt GmbH. German Company for furnishing of German Homes.
MR. FULKERSON: I don't want to quibble, but it seems to me we can go on with this list all afternoon. He seems to me now to have named enough to prove his point.
THE PRESIDENT: I think so. Exhibit No. 382 does not contain all of the names of companies in Staff-W, that is the point, is it?
DR. GAWLIK: I am afraid I did not quite follow Your Honor. It did not come through.
THE PRESIDENT: You are trying to say or show that Exhibit 382 is not a complete list of all the companies?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, exactly.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it go at that without telling us the names of all the companies that are omitted. We will assume that this is not a complete list.
DR. GAWLIK: But it seems to me important, Your Honor, that the names of the companies, particularly of the type of factories, that they should be named, because the Prosecution is obviously aiming at describing the DWB as a holding company for enterprises, the purposes of which were to exploit concentration camp inmates. However, the reason this list has been submitted, it only names concentration camp enterprises. I want to show that was not the purpose of the DWB as a holding office group.
THE PRESIDENT: You want to show that there were a number of companies which did not use concentration camp inmates.
DR. GAWLIK: And also there are types of companies which do research work or publishing which could not employ concentration camp inmates, and would have no reason to do so. I could not explain the practice.
THE PRESIDENT: And advertising on mail boxes, for example?
DR. GAWLIK: These companies never employed inmates.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what I mean.
DR. GAWLIK: But if the witness only told there were a few other enterprises which did not employ inmates, this is not sufficient pro bative value if he does not name the purposes, and also give the names of these enterprises; that the DWB did not have these enterprises in order to employ inmates.
THE PRESIDENT: We can shorten this if you will just have him tell what kind of companies they were. We do not understand the names, anyway, but he can tell what kind of work the companies did.
DR. GAWLIK: Yes. Perhaps we can, certainly.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Give us a few examples of the type of these enterprises which were not contained in the Prosecution's list?
A. The Company for the Fighting of Epidemics. They introduced a new type of drug against the food and mouth disease.
Q. What about addresses on some letter boxes?
THE PRESIDENT: We understand those. Are there any others, new? Of those that he has not mentioned?
THE WITNESS: Appolinaris, GmbH, has never employed a single inmate. Appolinaris produced soda water. This is a well known British firm, Appolinaris, and it is situated on the Rhine. I shall speak about it and tell you more about that company towards the end of my direct examination.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Go on.
A. It is an English firm. Then Apaunia, Milano -
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Kindly don't retrace your steps. We already heard about this company.
DR. GAWLIK: I have understood the President to the effect that he wanted to know what type of companies they were, and what they were doing?
THE PRESIDENT: I just mean for the rest, that is, what he is going to talk about from now on.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Please describe the type of companies?
A. The Company for Furnishing Homes had the task of selling furniture to the SS, and to bombed-out people. Then we had the Settlement in Sehlendorf, and had the Settlement which leased homes; those were the only two companies which were still missing.
Q. Now the question I want to put to you concerns the time up to the foundation of the WVHA until the time when the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps were put under Pohl's charge. Did you during that time as a member of Staff-W, or as a Prokurist of the DWB, have the task of dealing with concentration camps, or handle labor allocation of inmates?
A. I did not have anything to do with that as a member of StaffW.
Q. Did the DWB itself employ inmates?
A. You mean the DWB GMBH? The DWB, GMBH, did not employ inmates, because it was only a holding company.
Q. Were inmates used in the enterprise's subsidiary companies?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you know at that time about the extent to which inmates were employed by subsidiary companies?
A. I knew that the DEST, and the German Equipment Works employed inmates in the majority. I could not give you the exact figures, because I was not connected with anything relating to inmates. Also the German Testing Station for Food employed inmates in four or five big country estates, which were situated near concentration camps. I don't know those estates, but from the fact that they were situated near concentration camps, I would deduce that they would employ inmates.
Q. Did you have any influence on the management of these subsidiary companies?
A. No. I could not give them any orders. I only handled the legal matters of the DWB, and of those companies which had no legal experts.
They were usually the small companies. The large companies, such as the DEST, and the Experimental Food Station, as well as the DAW, had their own legal departments. For the DEST this becomes clear from Document NO-1032, which is in volume 16 on page 11, Exhibit No. 427.
Q. Exhibit 427.
A. Document NO-1032. It is the file plan of the legal department - a contract - real estate, insurance, taxation, and all other tasks usually connected with the legal department.
THE PRESIDENT: That's the DEST you are talking about?
A. Yes, the DEST. The DAW also had its own legal department. So did the Experimental Food Station. As I had no influence either with the companies nor the legal department and since I could not give them orders, the legal departments of these subsidiary companies were under the office chief. The office chief received his orders from Pohl. He reported to him directly. I myself received no knowledge of the affairs which he would discuss with Pohl. Any right to issue orders to the office chiefs was not possible because I was lower in rank, much lower than the office chiefs themselves. Any questions of business management were dealt with by office chiefs or managers in conversations with Pohl. When any factual matters had to be discussed in the way of business management not a legal expert was called in but a commercial expert. And the legal department was my competency. In questions of business management Pohl had his own specialist.
Q. Did you have any influence on the allocation of the inmates and the conditions under which they worked in the subsidiary companies?
A. As far as allocation was concerned and the conditions under which they worked I had nothing to do with these things. All those questions were handled by Pohl because there were no legal questions involved. Therefore, my presence was not required as far as labor conditions of inmates had nothing to do with that either. It becomes clear from the document frequently mentioned before, which is the business order, paragraph 10, where it says expressly under B that all conditions had to be discussed with the Public Trustee which had anything to do with labor conditions. Employees were always free civilian workers and not inmates.
Q. Would you have been in a position to prevent inmates from working in the enterprise?
A. No, my position was far too low for that. In order to give Pohl orders for instance, nor would I ever hear anything about it because I was not called in on conferences about that.
Q. Did you know at the time how such orders concerning allocation of inmates came about?
A. No, I didn't know that. I was never told about that. Nor did I bother about it, nor did I have the chance to do anything because the legal work kept me very busy.
Q. Were you familiar with conditions under which inmates worked?
A. I did not know anything about that. All I knew was the order from Pohl that inmates were to work 11 hours. I do know from occasional stories, I heard that several managers at their own risk let them work shorter hours.
Q. The Prosecution has submitted that you as a member of W were largely active in the participation of building up a big economic enterprise which employed inmates. I should, therefore, like to ask you what firms of the DWB you were participating in and what did you do?
A. When firms were being built up I never took any part.
Q. Were you participating in the foundation of DEST?
A. No. The contract of the DEST was signed in 1938. The company was formed on 10 June 1938 and entered into the Commercial Registry. This becomes clear from Document NO-1273, which is on page 22 of Document Book 16. It is Exhibit 430.
Q. It is, if Your Honors please, on page 21 of the English Document Book.
A. Would you like me to quote this, Your Honors? Would you like me to quote from this document?
Q. Please continue.
THE PRESIDENT: That's the document which shows when the DEST was organized. Isn't that right?
A. Yes, it is the document which shows who made the contract, that it was not I who made it but some other legal expert.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, so long as it wasn't you, you needn't refer to it then.
A. Mr. President, I am not quite clear. I have been reproached that I have been the head of the legal department and that I was connected with enterprises employing inmates. If I cannot justify myself from the documents submitted by the Prosecution I don't know how I am to defend myself because the Prosecution has been kind enough to give me so many document books they allege to be about the Party.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, your difficulty is you are trying to defend yourself against a lot of accusations which haven't been made. Nobody claims you signed a contract with DEST. Nobody says you did.
A. Yes, the Indictment, if Your Honors please, says expressly that I had been head of the legal department of the DWB and therefore had a hand in the organization and foundation of such companies which from the beginning aimed at employing inmates. But, I am only a German legal expert. Under German law you would call me a man who has abetted these enterprises. I wish to contradict these accusations by showing that in my legal matters I did not have anything to do with organizing of such companies.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think I can make you understand the difference between Indictment and the proof. You only have to meet and contradict the proof that is offered against you - the evidence. Go ahead I don't want to restrict you in any way from presenting anything that you think is material in your defense. So, go ahead and do it whatever way you think it ought to be done.
You see, under American law, you don't pay any attention to the Indictment. You just meet the evidence that is produced against you and no matter what they say in the Indictment if it isn't proved you have nothing to worry about and you don't have to defend yourself.