DR. SIEMERS:I have no further questions about Vairogs, but I have a few questions concerning Reichsvereinigung Kohle. You have already told us that you never received a transcript of the meeting of the presidents. Do you know whether such minutes were made at all?
AI can not say that, but I would like to assume so.
QYou said that you never received any. Does that mean that reports were submitted at the following meeting of the praedisium?
ANo, that was not so.
QYou said, if I remember rightly, that about five times you attended presidency meetings.
AThat is so.
QDo you remember how many meetings of the presidency of the Reich Association Coal were held at all during the four years from 1941 to 1944, or how many such meetings were held in the course of one year?
AAccording to the program two meetings were to be held annually, but I believe that the program was not adhered to. For example, I remember from the year 1944 that only one meeting took place, which was held in June. I can not swear to it whether perhaps a meeting was also held in January, but I don't believe so. The program provided for two meetings per annum, and I do not believe that as many meetings were held as years multiplied by two would have been meant. I don't think that the program was adhered to.
QThe Prosecution has submitted documents according to which meetings were held in the Ruhr area which were not meetings of the presidency proper but which were attended by Pleiger and occasionally by some members of the Praesidium. Let us call them unofficial meetings which were actually held at the Rheinisch Westphaelische Kohlen Syndicate. Did you attend such meetings?
ANo, I did not attend a single one.
QDid you attend any other meetings which Pleiger had called more or less formally when he was in the Ruhr district anyhow?
ANo, I did not attend such meetings.
QDid you attend meetings of the Coal Syndicate?
AAll my life I did not attend one single meeting of the Coal Syndicate.
QTell me, Dr. Flick, how is it that you, a member of the Praesidium of the Reich Association Coal, and as the owner of mines, attended so few meetings which concerned the subject of hard coal?
AI believe I can explain that with the same words which I used here yesterday in my statements in connection with my appointment to the Praesidium of the Reich Association Coal, and the part which I played there. In effect, my role with the Reich Association Coal, if I may say so, was that of a guest, who had been asked by the owners as being the greatest private coal owner in Germany, but not in a corresponding active function. Herr Pleiger, in his affidavit which was submitted here described the actual state of affairs. He said Flick was one of the greatest coal owners, but his interests in the RVK were adequately represented by the active director generals Buskuehl and Tengelmann. If I became a member all the same it was the result of the participation in the preceding discussions with Goering to throw over the coal commissar Walter in the course of which the Reich Association Coal was founded, with the further result that Goering appointed me without having consulted me first, and I, as I thought, could resign quite independently of the fact whether I was able to carry out those functions or not. My group was already a member of the Reich Association Coal and was represented therein on a very large scale - already had two representatives in the Praedisium. One of them got in largely in his capacity as chairman of the Ruhr district group. That was Buskuehl. But that there should have been room for three was out of the question; therefore, in effect, I did stay in the Praesidium, and I attended those few meetings in the role as a listener and a guest, end only once I made a casual remark, and otherwise I did not take the floor.
QDr. Flick, in your concern management you had no particular expert for hard coal or for hard coal mining. Is that correct?
AThe experts were Buskuehl and Tengelmann. They were the experts.
QDr. Flick ......
AIn Berlin we had no expert for mining questions. Perhaps it is not uninteresting: If you differentiate between steel and coal property in the Berlin administration, the larger portion was on the coal side. In spite of this there was no expert for coal questions in the Berlin office.
QDr. Flick, when listening to the Prosecution one sometimes has the feeling that the significance of the management of a concern has been stressed excessively. The importance of the director generals has been placed in the shadow. May I ask you to give us a brief account of the importance of a man like Buskuehl and Tengelmann in the coal field in particular in respect to the fact as to whether those two men enjoyed their great reputation in Germany only since the time when you owned 70% of the works.
ATengelmann had been the director general for many years, and the very efficient manager of Essener Steinkohle, before I had any relations with that plant. Tengelmann decades before, had been one of the founders of Essener Steinkohle, he was the man who had created the enterprise. He was an unusually energetic, efficient, unsuccessful manager. I believe I can remember that before my time he was the only person who was entitled to sign for Essener Steinkohle. That is to say, it was a most unusual thing in Germany for a man to be the sole person who represented the company with legal force. One of these exceptional cases, in fact, was Tengelmann as a representative of Essener Steinkohle. Of his own free will he fave that up at a later time.
He no longer wished to hold that authority, because it was not the general practice in the Ruhr area, and he was the only person with that authority in that area.
I have already said here that he was the president of the Chamber of Commerce and that he enjoyed a very great reputation. It was the same in the case of Buskuehl, the director general of Harpen. Buskuehl held a similar position before he joined Harpen. He was the director general for technical matters for the big internationally known Mannesman Works in Duesseldorf. They are known all over the world, in particular in South America where they have branches and associate companies. Buskuehl simultaneously held the position of chairman of the District Group Ruhr for the whole mining industry. That was a position which certainly was of great importance and his predecessor who also had collaborated with me, had held a position of similar importance. He was Director General Vickler. He had been chairman of the Rheinishe-Westphalian Coal Syndicate. That is a position which in Germany was of an unusual significance. Everybody knows that from the Gerdorf era, that was the man who founded the coal syndicate; The chairman of the Coal Syndicate, by virtue of its position, is one of the most prominent persons in the Ruhr Area. I do not think that the other industrialists of the Ruhr would have put up with it if they had been of the impression that Chairman of the Coal Syndicate or the chairman of the district Group Ruhr, is one of "Flick's young men." The big Vereinigte Stahlwerke nor Hugo Stinnes, nor Peter Kloeckner, would have put up with that unless they were of the conviction that that was a man in his own independent position and who did not have to obey Flick. Unless they had that conviction they would not have placed him in such a responsible position. I repeat, President of the Chamber of Commerce, Chairman of the Coal Syndicate and Chairman of the district Group Ruhr - these positions within the entire Ruhr Area in the hands of members of the Vorstand which are classified here as positions of greater or lesser significance of the Flick Concern.
Q:Thank you, Dr. Flick. May I ask you now, and this is my final question, to tell us something about one point in respect of Director General Buskuehl. Do you know anything about his position after the collapse of Germany? Do you know whether, after May 1 45 until his death, he still held an outstanding position?
A:I was told once that he was a President of the Chamber of Commerce at Dortmund. I cannot say that for certain because during that time I never spoke to him again.
Q:You heard that as having been the case after the collapse, that is to say, under the rule of the British Military Government?
A:Well, I was told that once.
Q:Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT:That closes the questioning by the various counsel for the defendants.
MR. ERVIN:If your Honor please, I would suggest we begin the cross examination Monday morning, if that is satisfactory.
THE PRESIDENT:Perhaps that would be the best thing to do. The Tribunal will now recess until Monday morning at half past 9 o'clock.
(The Tribu al adjourned until 14 July 1947 at 0930 hours)
Official Transcript of American Military Tribunal IV in the Matter of the United States of America against Friedrich Flick, et al, Defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 14 July 1947, 0930 hours, Justice Sears presiding.
THE MARSHAL:Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal IV.
Military Tribunal IV is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Marshal, are the Defendants all present in the court room?
THE MARSHAL:May it please your Honor, all the Defendants are present in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Ervin?
MR. ERVIN:If your Honor please, there was a question raised by Dr. Siemers with respect to the Siemag Company and the allegations in the indictment, at the last session.
In paragraph 6 of the indictment which is in Count I it appears on page 8 of the printed English version -- the next to the last sentence of that paragraph states "Flick and Weiss are also charged with responsibility for the acts and conduct set forth in this paragraph in so far as they relate to the Siemag Company."
The Prosecution moves to amend that sentence to read:
"Weiss is also charged with responsibility."
And from there on exactly the same as is set forth. in the present sentence.
In other words, that would eliminate that charge as far as Siemag was concerned, against the Defendant Flick.
THE PRESIDENT:This amendment may be made, and will you prepare the usual order, Mr. Ervin?
,MR. ERVIN: Yes, your Honor.
Now, in Count II of the Indictment which deals with spoliation, on page 11 of the printed version, it is paragraph ten of the Indictment, sub-paragraph b, which is headed, "In the Occupied East"-
THE PRESIDENT:I didn't catch that last bit.
MR. ERVIN:It is sub-paragraph b, which is headed, "In the Occupied East."
THE PRESIDENT:Yes.
MR. ERVIN:The second sub-paragraph in that section now reads, "Pursuant to the plans and programs of the BHO, the Siegener Maschinenbau gained possession of the works Woroshilow at Dniepropetrowsk in the U.S.S.R. and operated them from about January, 1943, until the evacuation of the area in the fall of 1943 Siemag was owned principally by Weiss and was controlled and influenced by Flick and Weiss, both of whom are charged with responsibility therefor. If your Honor please, the Prosecution would like to amend that last sentence to read, "Siemag was owned principally by Weiss."
THE PRESIDENT:Just a moment. "Principally by Weiss" -
MR.ERVIN: "Who is charged with responsibility therefor."
Now , I would like to make it perfectly clear that there is no withdrawal of any charge against the Defendant Flick as to the part that the BHO might have played in this system. There is a separate charge, later on , as to his activities in the BHO. But I believe that will satisfy Dr. Siemer's question.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, Mr. Ervin, that leaves the other charge, of which you have spoken in the indictment, in another place.
MR. ERVIN:That is true, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT:The striking it out here does not include any change in the other part of the indictment which cover a matter which is partly covered by this too.
MR. ERVIN:That is true, your Honor. That is, this paragraph refers to the activities of the individual who was attempting to obtain a sponsorship.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes.
MR. ERVIN:As far as that is concerned, that was the Siemag Company; as far as the action of the Siemag Company is concerned,the charge is limited solely to the Defendant Weiss.
THE PRESIDENT:You have made it very clear, I think, and the amendment will be allowed. At the same time, a formal order will be prepared by the Prosecution and submitted for signature.
MR. ERVIN:Very well, your Honor, I will submit such an order.
THE PRESIDENT:That seems to be the system which is agreeable to the Secretary-General in keeping the minutes of the entire Process.
MR. ERVIN:I might ask if Defense Counsel desires copies of those orders in German or if English copies will be satisfactory to them.
THE PRESIDENT:I didn't hear what the Defense Counsel wished in that respect. They haven't any microphones before them.
MR. ERVIN:I know Dr. Flaechsner was nodding his head. But I will take that up with them outside.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well; that is a detail
MR. ERVIN:If your Honor please, the Prosecution, if the Court has no objection, will divide the cross-examination of the Defendant Flick between myself and Mr. Lyon, roughly in the way that the presentation of the direct evidence was presented. There will be no overlapping but the complicated nature of certain of the details with which Mr. Lyon is more familiar than I, I think will serve to expedite the cross-examination if that procedure is followed.
THE PRESIDENT:There will be no objection to that on the part of the Court .
FRIEDRICH FLICK - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. ERVIN:
QDefendant, there have been a number of documents which the prosecution has introduced in this case which have been either signed or prepared by you. I am not referring now to those documents which merely bear your initial. These are documents which presumably you wrote or which you signed.
Now, the prosecution has perhaps been a little native in taking all these documents at their face value. According to your testimony they don't always mean what they say. They have been written down for someone. I was wondering if you can give me some general clue or guide to help me in evaluating these documents. Is there some general pattern I can follow which will indicate to me whether they can be taken at face value or not?
AI assume that counsel for the prosecution refers to those documents which have not been drawn up by me, but which, however, are initialed by me. Are those the documents you are referring to?
QNo, I am referring particularly to documents which have been prepared by you; for example, the 19 January 1938 memorandum in preparation for your conference with Goering at the time of the J.P. deal. There were certain paragraphs in that memorandum which you explained to us by saying that they really didn't represent your true feelings; that they really didn't mean what they said.
ASuch a memorandum as the one you just mentioned, that is, the one of 19 January 1938, is an internal preparation for the conference with Goering which was to take place on the 21st. It was a preparation for the largeroutlines of my plans for what I wanted to submit to Goering. As a matter of course, the conference with Goering did not actually take place in the way that I sat down opposite him and handed him a memorandum of five or six pages and read it to him. That's not the way it was because, after all, a conversation with an important man doesn't take place that way because that would have been rather ridiculous on my part.
According to my opinion I didn't say either that that doesn't mean a thing, I mean what is written in this memorandum. On the contrary, what I have written down on the 19th of January was exactly what I wanted to tell Goering in the rough outlines. That is after all the reason why I have written it down, I mean, I could have told him, but whether I told him every single word of it, that's another question but at least I wanted to tell him what I had written down in that memorandum; that is, the drift of the matter and I wanted to see the things as they were and wanted to he quite sure of what I planned to say to Goering, and in a general way I think that I told him what is written down in the memo, in a general way that is, but I couldn't tell you today whether I have said every single word of it. That of course I don't know.
QNow, defendant, I am not particularly interested at this time as to the details of the Petschek transaction which Mr. Lyon will cover later on, hut Dr. Dix asked you about several statements in that memorandum. He asked you about several statements in a later memorandum which is Exhibit 405, dealing primarily with what Dr. Dix described as "little anti-semitic remarks". Now, these remarks are in the memorandum; the memorandum was prepared by you. As I understand it they didn't represent your true feelings
JUDGE CHRISTIANSON:Mr. Ervin, would you be so kind as to give us the exhibit number of the memorandum to which you are referring?
MR. ERVIN:Yes, the first one is 397 and the second one is Exhibit 405.
JUDGE CHRISTIANSON:Thank you.
Q (Continued): The memo contained remarks which were not your true feelings. Isn't that what you told us?
AThese little anti-semitic remarks I have explained here already to the effect that I said first of all, they were not directed against the Petscheks. They referred in one case - I think that is also specified in the memorandum - in one case they referred to the Friedlaender case.
QWell then, it was a correct statement of your feelings as to the Friedlaenders?
AI haven't finished. I haven't finished. I also stated why and for what reasons I took this view against Friedlaender. If these remarks were made with the intention of using them for a committee, in which amongst others Sauckel was represented, that is, a committee, the aim of which was mainly against the Petscheks, well then, the remarks were intended mainly to serve as tactical and diplomatic tools for me. I stated that if I had said in this committee or had made it clear in this committee what was my actual position in the Jewish question, then I would have been bounced out of the committee and put into a very difficult position.
Just in this very committee, and also with Goering I made efforts, or at least, I wanted to make efforts to have the wrong measures against the Petscheks stopped or prevented and if a man like me, who, as I have proved to this Tribunal, very often supported and helped Jews without pursuing a personal interest in it and even went so far as to bring his own person into danger of his own existence, who had such incriminations in this Jewish question already against himself, if such a man has the intention to make a purposeful anti-semitic remark in such a committee, then I have nothing to regret in that connection.
I never was an anti-semite. I have proved that sufficiently by action, and I can only repeat that if in this committee I had the intention of making such an anti-Jewish remark, then that was merely a matter of tactics and the reason was to be able, first of all, to get into a contact with the persons involved and to make an attempt to slowly but surely drag them over to my line of conduct, and my intentions just were to prevent the forced actions which had already been started against the Petscheks.
QWell, as I understand it, for tactical purposes you would sometimes make anti-Semitic remarks. Now I wasn't particularly desiring to deal with that question at this moment. For tactical and diplomatic reasons you made certain other statements in memoranda which have been explained. What I am interested in now is the great number of other documents which have been introduced in the record which have been prepared or signed by you, the documents as to which you have not commented and as to which you have given us no explanation. Am I safe in relying on those documents as stating your true position or your true feelings, or must I always consider some tactical and diplomatic reason?
AWell, no man can tell, after ten years, whether every document and every memorandum corresponds to his true feelings or whether it was diplomacy and tactics. Mainly, in the great outline, I think it would correspond to my true feelings - mainly, I would say; but, as I said already, nobody can repeat his own words, every single word, and analyze it after ten years.
QWell, I agree with you, Defendant, and that is why I have put so much store upon the written record of ten years ago. As I understand it, we can say that your written words were, well, ninety percent reliable; for the most part the written documents are accurate and do display your true feelings?
AWell, it is impossible to give a percentage, of course, even if I tried to.
QBut in the main we can rely on any document introduced which is signed by you if you haven't given us some explanation that it is not quite what it purports to be?
AI already said, in general, that would be the case. Of course, there are limitations. For instance, I will give you an example, freely, from my memory. If I wrote a letter to the staff office that Kaletsch or one or the other of my collaborators should be released from military service and exempted from being drafted, and if I gave this man an importance in that letter which was not actually the importance he had and if by doing so I would make him more important than he actually was I would describe him as having a function which he actually didn't have, then that was a description meant for a certain purpose.
QI believe you gave us that example on your direct examination, so that you would say in many cases what you have written was designed for a particular audience to achieve a particular purpose and, therefore, stated in the manner most appealing to that audience, isn't that right?
AI am afraid your question wasn't quite clear to me in the end.
QWell, what I have said is that quite frequently -
AWell, I think everybody does that in every letter he writes in general. I think, too, every document here - of course, I could not tell you whether this particular document was meant to please the receiver, but in a general way I can say that I stand up for what I have written.
QHow about your spoken words?
AWell, of course
THE PRESIDENT:What do you mean by "spoken words", Mr. Ervin? Do you mean those spoken here on the stand?
Mr. Ervin: No, records of conversations.
AI am afraid that isn't quite clear to me. Would you please ex plain that with a little more detail because it is really not quite clear to me.
BY MR. ERVIN:
QI was speaking about records of conversations that we have seen here and whether the same thing applied to them as would apply to the written memoranda, and I have your answer. I think we can pass to another subject.
There is just one more of these documents, one of the particular documents prepared, I would like to refer to on this general subject. It is in Document Book II. Do you have a copy of Document Book II with you?
ANo, I don't.
MR. ERVIN:I wonder if the Marshal could get a German version of Document Book II.
THE PRESIDENT:You want the German version?
MR. ERVIN:Yes, Your Honor. BY MR. ERVIN:
QI think you remember the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of your entry in the Charlottenhuette; you delivered an address at that time and a copy of the address as delivered was included as Exhibit 26 in Document Book II.
THE MARSHAL:What is the Prosecution's Exhibit number on that?
MR. ERVIN:Exhibit 26. The document number was NI-3345. BY MR. ERVIN:
QDo you remember who was present where you delivered that speech?
THE PRESIDENT:Just a moment, the Secretary-General doesn't seem to be able to find this.
THE INTERPRETER:Your Honor, it is on page 1 of the document book.
THE PRESIDENT:He seems to have found it. BY MR. ERVIN:
QDo you remember the occasion?
AYes, I do.
QWho was present at the speech?
AWell, on the occasion of that speech the audience consisted partly of my collaborators from Berlin, I mean those who held higher positions, also the members of the Vorstand of the Furnace Words, or rather, the steel works, of the concern. That is, for instance, of Maxhuette, of Mittelstahl, Brandenburg-Henningsdorf and also former members of the Vorstand of these words. The directors of the coal and processing words did not attend the speech. There was a banquet, and on that occasion I also made an address, but I didn't even read it at that particular day. I spoke without notes, and what you can see in this document was a sort of an aid for my memory.
QNow, Defendant, there is a sentence which appears on page 4 of the English document book. It is on page 5 of the German original. Perhaps the interpreter can give you the document book page. You are talking about scrap. Now you were sometimes considered an expert on scrap, and then this sentence appears: "Scrap as is well known was not a particularly distinguished article, at least not as long as it was traded in by Jews." It was a very important article. Was there any tactical reason for this somewhat gratuitous remark?
AWell, I don't think that there actually was a tactical reason. It was a general conception of the whole German steel industry that Schrott (scrap) was not a very refined article and that the trading with scrap-iron in general was considered as such, too. I mean that was just a general conception. Everybody felt that way.
QWell, then we can agree that this is not what we might call a little anti-Semitic remark?
AWell, we have reached an agreement that that was not a tactical remark. For the rest we are not in agreement.
QYou mean, you don't agree with me 6 that it was not an antiSemitic remark?
A.I did not say it was not an anti-Semitic remark. I only said that this is only a repitition of something everybody in the German steel industry felt. You can ask just anybody. Everybody will tell you the same thing concerning anti-Semitic remarks. I can only repeat that somebody like me who sacrificed my very existence for the Jews, could risk making an anti-Semitic remark once in a while to clear oneself from general suspicion. I did not help only one Jew, I helped quite a number of them.
Q.You told us about that.
A.I said quite a number. I gave them the opportunity to create for themselves a new existence abroad. Very often I risked my own life and my own person for that. And now, if I am supposed to have made some sort of general anti-Semitic remark, as for instance in this particular case, I cannot consider it as such at all. Nobody would have considered that. But even if I made those anti-Semitic remarks -if you come back to the question of tactical remarks or non-tactical remarks -- then you could very well find tactical reasons for it. My tactic was to try to clear myself from a general suspicion that I was a friend of Jews because I always supported them. Today, I can no longer distinguish between what was tactical and what was not. Furthermore, it has not been proved whether I actually said these things or not. I certainly have not read it.
Q.Let us talk a little about your political contributions in 1932. Do you have a copy of the affidavit which you referred to in your direct examination?
THE PRESIDENT:Was the phrias "dealers in scrap" accurately translated by the words "junk dealers"?
MR. ERVIN:If Your Honor please, I do not know. I will get the German and ask Mr. Kaufmann here. I think the word used is probably "Schrott".
THE PRESIDENT:Is that equivalent to what we mean by "junk dealer"?
MR. ERVIN:I think perhaps the defendant could help us on that. He was an expert in scrap.
THE PRESIDENT:He may not know the implication of the English word.
MR. ERVIN:That is true; he may not. Defendant, do you have the affidavit before you?
JUDGE CHRISTIANSON:What is the exhibit number?
MR. ERVIN:This has no exhibit number. This is one of the documents which Dr. Dix is going to introduce in his document book. I believe he made a copy available to the Tribunal in direct examination.
DR. DIX:I think that I can remember with certainty that on the day when I questioned Flick concerning this list of contributions, I gave Mr. Ervin a copy of that. list. You have a copy.
MR. ERVIN:I just wonder if you gave one to the Court.
THE PRESIDENT:The German was given to the Court.
MR. DIX:Of course, I can get it for you, Your Honors. Shall I go and fetch it, or shall I bring it along during the recess?
MR. ERVIN:I do not think it will be necessary to have it.
Q.As I understand it, this list of your contributions in 1932, which is in the form of an affidavit, sworn to by you on 6 June 1947, has been compiled partly from memory and partly from records at your disposal; is that right?
A.That was not quite clear to me.
Q.How did you compile this list? What sources of information did you use?
A.I had documents at my disposal partly, and I estimated the rest. I had documents, for instance, for the first contribution of 450,000 Marks.
Q.Do you have with you, at the moment, the documents which you used in compiling this list?
DR. DIX:If Your Honor please, I expected that there would be some Court 4, Case 5 question asked concerning this list of contributions.
To facilitate the procedure before this Tribunal, and also to aid Mr. Ervin, I have brought along the original of the receipts which I will submit during my case in chief later on. Unfortunately, I have only the originals, but I very gladly place them at the disposal of the Tribunal, but I would have to get them back because I will need them for my case in chief. Anyhow, I would like to hand them over to Mr. Ervin, first. First of all, there is a receipt or a confirmation for 500,000-- Oh, I see, there is also a list. I can lend that to Mr. Ervin too. That is fine. Here we have a compiled list. And here you have the individual receipts to which the defendant has just referred. He spoke of his documents. These documents were the documents he had at his disposal. For the rest, he relied on his memory. May I then hand the original to the Tribunal?
THE PRESIDENT:You may have it back for translation if that is necessary. Have you the copies or do you want this?
MR. ERVIN:I have a copy of the list. Dr. Dix was kind enough to make this available to me some time ago.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well.
MR. ERVIN:I wish to thank him for this now. I think it would perhaps be better to make them available to the witness. Perhaps he can refresh his recollection from the documents.
Q.After this first item, this 450,000 Reichsmarks; when was that one paid?
A.That was paid -- just a minute, I have to look at the receipts first -- it was paid on the 12th of April 1932. First there was 250,000 Marks, and on the third of June 1932, another 100,000 Marks.
Q.I thought I understood you to say there was one payment of 100,000 and two of 100,000.
A.No. There was one payment as I have read to you of 250,000 Marks and two payments of 100,000 Marks each. Altogether, it amounted Court 4, Case 5 to 450,000 Marks.
Q.Who signed the receipts for those payments?
A.The receipts for these payments were signed by me. They are here before the Tribunal. I signed the receipt for my company and I passed the money on to the treasurer of the Hindenburg election which was Mayor Winkler. I did that partly myself. It is also possible that one of my collaborers passed the money on to him. You can ask Mayor Winkler and make him testify to that question. Furthermore, we have a statement by the then Vice-Councillor Dietrich concerning the part I played curing the election of Hindenburg. His testimony is to the effect that my payments contributed largely to the success of the election.
Q.As I understand it, you made these payments to Winkler and Vice-Chancellor Dietrich knows about it. Did you pay any of them to Dietrich?
A.No. I did not make any payments to Dietrich. All the payments went to Winkler.
Q.What part did Dietrich play in the collection?
A.The part Dietrich played was the following. He approached acquaintances of his and asked them for contributions. He asked them to collect money for the election of Hindenburg. He advocated this election. He approached me in that matter sometimes via Otto Wolf. He was a good friend of Otto Wolf.