AIn general that is correct; it is not completely correct, but on the whole. It varied. Firstly, with the share of ownership; and much depended on the people concerned. There were people who did not bother very much or not at all about who the owner was. For instance, in order to make that clear once again, we are not the majority shareholders of Harpen or Essener Steinkohle. We had the majority of the voting stock but in substance, during the last phase, we readhed about 50 percent. There were people who managed their plants fairly independent of the position of the chairman of the Aufsichtsrat. Among these were Herr Tenglemann, also previously Geheimrat Doeringer, Director General of the Maxhuette; but, in general, on important questions, especially any questions of big financial transactions, I exerted an influence which exceeded the normal limit of the Chairman of the Aufsichtsrat, or shall I express myself like this -- to an extent which is not necessarily connected with this position -- but it differed with the various companies. The whole so-called "Concern" was not a thing which had grown organically and structurally it was not a unified formation. BY THE PRESDIENT:
QMay I ask a question or two on the general progress of the Flick Concern? During the days of the Weimar Republic, was the government of the Reich a principal customer of yours.
AThe Government?
QThe government.
AIn the sense of the supply of our goods and our products, the sale of our goods -- no, you can't say that. In general, steel material was only supplied directly, mainly to the Reich Railway; that is, State public orders, to the plants themselves did not exist, apart from railway orders.
QDid some of your companies belong to cartels?
AYes. The whole German stell industry was cartelized in the shape of assocations, both for steel and for coal.
QWere orders received for government supplies, such as railroad cars and locomotives - did they come within the cartel allotments?
AIn general they were. There was a locomotive association which distributed public orders amounting to an allotment key. For instance, if in a year the German Railway Company ordered 200 locomotives, then the firm of Henschel in Kassel, as the biggest locomotive factory had a 30% interest, that is, it got 60 locomotives, and somebody else had 7% and somebody else had 10% and so on and it was similar or exactly the same with reference to railroad cars. That was, in the railroad car associations, a scheme, under which every railroad car factory was given a fixed percentage of the amount of the share it was to get of public orders. The biggest factory of these was Linke-Hoffmann Works in Breslau - that was the biggest rail road car factory but it was insignificant for locomotives; it got only 6% or &% of locomotive orders.
QDuring the days of the National Socialist government, the government itself or some of its departments constituted your principal customer?
AThe Government?
QOr its departments.
ANo, one cannot say that, because all the associations remained. That is, the Steel Association, the Raw Iron Association, the Steel Plant Association -- all these remained. Direct supplies to the Reich, including war materials even during the war, did not play a decisive part for us. Of the profits of the total concern before the war, it was Quite insignificant, and during the war the share of the profits made out of direct State contracts was only a very modest percentage, indeed.
QWell, I had supposed from what I had heard here, that your enterprises were largely, after '34 and particularly after '39, principally engaged in furnishing material or manufactured articles to the government or one of its agencies. Am I wrong in that?
A:The far greater part of the output of the whole concern before the war did not go to the government. The turnover on direct government contract, I can't say from memory, but 5% or 8% would already have been a high turnover and certainly it was not that percentage of the profits. During the war, too, it did not play any dicisive part with reference to the surplus which the concern, as a whole, achieved. If I had access to the figures and could work this out I could give a closer approximation to these figures. Coal, for instance, had nothing to do with the State, neither hard coal or soft coal; and also in the case of steel production, by far the greater part, that is certainly quantitatively 90%, even during the war, was used to fulfil contracts which were not State contracts. All this went through the Associations - rails, wrought iron, wire, sheet iron, plate iron, and so on, all these articles which had nothing to do with the immediate war material. Immediate war material was shells, gu s, and gun barrels. If I name a figure in Mittlestahl and Maxhuette, without Doehlen, every month we produced perhaps 140,000 tons of raw steel; and of these 140,000 tons of raw steel, in my opinion, certainly not even 14,000 tons were used for these public contracts.
Q:Well, a good deal of the material supplied to the Associations went, however, did it not, to the government or the government agencies?
A:That cannot be followed up in detail. One may take the view that in wartime everything is war material and that everything serves the waging of war. In a certain sense that is correct. So if, for instance, we manufactured 10,000 tons of rails during the war, this indirectly served the war effort; or if, for instance, we sent a dealer a few thousand tons of wrought iron a month and this iron dealer used the wrought iron partially or entirely, shall we say, without our influence or without our knowledge and supplied it to a man who turned it into ammunition - then at this stage of further processing it was also war material.
But it was not war material for us -- only for the person who turned this material, that is, who bought this wrought iron from us. In other words, you must say, indirectly, the entire production, not only of us but of everybody in Germany in the long run, in the last instance, helped to serve the war effort. But these were not State contracts to us. These were orders from the Associations. The order said - "Please, a thousand tons of wrought iron to this or that dealer." He took it to his dump, or sent it immediately to a factory, on which we had no influence. That was his business - and if the factory then made partly war material, this was war material for him, who actually carried out this manufacturing process.
THE PRESIDENT:My only idea in asking these questions was to show the change, if there was any, in the enterprise, so far as the furnishing of government supplies as against the general distribution of an iron manufacturer in the pre-Social Democratic Party.
MR. ERVIN:I understand.
THE PRESIDENT:I don't know whether it is material or not, but at any rate it was running through my head. BY MR. ERVIN:
Q:If I may ask one more quesyion on this same subject? As I understand, the steel quotas were set by the Associations - the "Verbaende", before the war and, I think, before 1933, I think you said the steel cartels continued during the war. during the Nazi Regime, after 1933?
A:Yes. At the later phase of the Nazi regime, I don't know when, or during the war even, some of them were cancelled at the time when they were no longer of any importance because everyone in any case had enough work. The quotas and the participation figures came into being when not every manufacturer had enough work and everybody wanted as much as possible. As I said, if 200 locomotives are ordered, if I get 10%, then I have 20 locomotives; if I get 20%, then I have 40 locomotives. In the course of the war it was like this, that everybody could have all the work he wanted and the quotas no longer had any meaning and later, whether in every case I do not know, but on the whole, I think it was in 1941 or 1942, they were dropped.
Q:To the extent that there were any cartel associations continued, as far as the iron and steel industry was concerned were they a part of the Reichsvereinigung Eisen after it was organized?
A:Yes. They were included in the Reich Association Iron in another form, with a certain amount of reconstruction and above all with a different name. After all, everything had to be changed - it was most important that the child should be rechristened.
Q:Now to get back to your position and responsibility in the Concern which we were discussing a few minutes ago. I think you are probably familiar with the Steinbrinck letter to Dr. Voss, which was written in 1936. That was Exhibit 63, in Book 2, page 150; the document number is NI-5399. The 4th paragraph of that letter -- do you have it before you, defendant?
A:Just a moment, just a moment. Steinbrinck to Voss?
Q: 16 December 1936?
A:The 16th of December I have here.
Q:The 5th paragraph of the letter I am referring to begins: "Dr. Flick exercises virtually the functions of a Generaldirektor" and then it continues on for several sentences there.
JUDGE RICHMAN:Is that a document we have?
MR. ERVIN:Yes, your Honor, that is Exhibit 63 in Book 2, page 150.
A:I have a letter of the 16th of December, I do not know if that is the one, 16th of December.
Q:It is a letter to Dr. Voss which begins: "Some time ago we were discussing whether it was necessary." I am interested at this time only in the 6th paragraph of the letter which begins: "Dr. Flick exercises virtually the functions of a Generaldirektor over the works of our group, that is to say, Mittelstahl, Hennigsdorf, Maxhuette and Harpen." Then the paragraph continues. Is that statement also generally correct?
A.This statement is most definitely not correct. I deny it most energetically. For example, when it says here that I carried out the functions of director-general of Harpen, in Harpen I exercised the functions of chairman of the Aufsichsrat, and I have explained that in major issues, in particular major financial transactions, I took a part over and beyond the limits of this function. This would have taken place in any case, to a certain extent, because such big financial questions and transactions in any case are the sphere of competence of the Aufsichsrat, in so far as the Aufsichsrat has to aprove them if they are to become valid. The director-general of Harpen was in Dortmund, and in Dortmund everything was settled for the Happener Gesellschaft that was connected with the management and direction of the plant. All dispositions, purchases, sales, production, association questions, coal syndicate, budget accounting, administrative matters, labor questions, employment of workers -- all this took place while we in Berlin -- including myself -- did not even get a letter on the subject. And the relations between Harpen and myself consisted only and exclusively of the Harpener Vorstand sending a monthly report; and Buskuehl, the director-general, over and beyond that every month usually in addition sent me an interesting report ---if it was particularly interesting -- about a meeting of the coal syndicate, because he assumed that important things which might interest me were discussed there. That is all.
As we have seen from all the documents submitted here, for instance in the labor question, all the documents concerning Harpen have not shown anything. They are all internal documents of Essener Steinkohle. Nor was I director general of Harpen.
I think you can examine everybody, not only in Harpener, but also every industrialist in the Ruhr. You can ask on the subject, and not one will say or claim that I was general director of the Harpen.
Q.This letter doesn't say you were the general director. I think if you read the next several sentences it will explain the statement there. At first, let me ask you, perhaps you better read the next sentence first.
(Witness reading document.)
Now, if we eliminate Harpen from the paragraph, is it a fair statement?
A.I don't understand. "If we eliminate Harpen," you say?
Q.If we eliminate Harpen from the discussion for the moment, is the paragraph a fair statement?
I didn't get the answer.
A.Yes.
Q.Well, that was the situation in 1936. Did that continue throughout until 1945?
A.Yes, in general the position was and remained as I have described it. Up to 1945 nothing essential changed. The director-general of Harpen in 1945 was the same as in 1936. The purpose of this letter I suppose is clear and known.
Q.Yes, I think that appears from the document. Now, did you attend with any frequency Vorstand meetings of the various companies in your concern?
A.That varied. My collaboration was bigger in the steel group, that is, Mittelstahl, Maxhuette, Doehlen, Brandenburg. This is due to the fact that I came in on the steel side, and that I had more knowledge of steel than of coal, or for that matter, of further processing in the plants.
Within the plants of the steel group every year -- though perhaps not in the last year of the war, I don't remember -- a general assembly took place of all Vorstand members, that is, the Vorstand of Maxhuette, Mittelstahl, Doehlen, Henigs dorf and so on, at the end of the year, in order to compare the results of the last business year and to obtain sugges tions from this.
I myself made some remarks in the nature of a commentary, or if you like, a criticism, or praise, I would say last year one increased five per cent, another only two percent, and the third got behind.
Major questions of a general nature were also discussed, development of production costs -- all the things which in the framework of supervision of the enterprises in question are necessary and which arise.
Every company -- I am speaking firstly of the steel group -- of course had its own meeting when the annual report and the final report were submitted, when the business report was discussed which had to be submitted to the Aufsichsrat.
It went beyond that too. The Vorstaende of the steel group had discussion, whether in the nature of a formal Vorstand session; sometimes it was and sometimes not -- I can't remember exactly -- and we didn't keep that apart so strictly either.
And sometimes in the case of plant discussions, in the steel group there was constant contact in questions of importance, usually contact through my Berlin office, with my collaborators, for instance Dr. Burkart.
In the case of coal it was different. Vorstand meetings and discussions with hard coal never took place at all.
When an annual report had to be discussed before being submitted to the Aufsichsrat as a whole the directorgeneral with his accountant came to me, submitted the thing to me.
We discussed it together, perhaps suggested various changes, and then this was submitted to the Aufsichsrat as a whole at the official meeting. That is what took place in Essener Steinkohle, and on the whole it was the same with Brown Coal. And in the plants of the so-called refining works-- that is, ATG and Linke-Hoffman-Busch -- I usually restricted myself to general discussion with Herr Weiss, and then once a year I took part in a meeting of all the Aufsichsrat. I was not the chairman of the Aufsichsrat of these enterprises but the deputy. Vorstand meetings with the directors of these plants I never held either.
QDr. Dix asked you some questions about the Vorstand of Mittelstahl, saying that it was divided up really into three Vorstaende. Wasn't he really discussing more the division of functions among the members?
AYes, I can explain that.
QWell, for example, if there was a Vorstand meeting of Mittelstahl, all of the separate groups would be present; that is, Kaletsch and Burkart wouldn't have a Vorstand meeting of Mittelstahl by themselves in the Berlin Office?
ANo, no, that was not the Vorstand of Mittelstahl to manage the works; that is the Vorstand of Mittelstahl must be divided into two parts corresponding to the structure of Mittelstahl. Mittelstahl was on the one hand a manufacturing company with the plants in Riesa, Groeditz, Lauchhammer and Brandenburg. And for the management of these plants the Vorstand members - three in Riesa and two in Brandenburg - were appointed who were responsible for the management of the plant with everything that that involves, with full responsibility.
Mittelstahl, however, up to the autumn of 1943 was at the same time a holding company. It owned not only the plants -- that picture up there was made in 1945 but at the end of 1943 it was different, and Mittelstahl was the apex of the holding companies and the Berlin Vorstand members of Mittelstahl had the task which resulted from the nature of Mittelstahl as a holding company - everything that was connected with it; direct works management, in fact, works management in general from Berlin never existed at all. Berlin was not a central office for the management of plants. It was a central office for the administration of industrial shares, participation and to carry out the measures which arose out of these participations.
In essence this was exacted through Aufsichtsrat functions. One must keep the things completely apart. The works were managed under completely decentralized system on the spot by the Vorstaende which were at the works and had their own office there, and they did everything -
buy, sell, production workers accounts, finances, everythin there was on their own responsibility. I deliberately carried through the principle of decentralization and where it did not exist already I introduced it. My attitude was that the fifty or so Vorstand members took responsibility for the current management and running of the plant and if I myself had made any arrangements, then I would have interfered with my primary principle of being able to hold the others responsible. The others made reports, regular detailed monthly reports with statistics, and this material we evaluated in Berlin; we worked on it according to our own system in a supervisory sense. The works currently reported every month their financial development, what their bank credit was, what they had produced, what production costs had been but how they did that, that was all their own affair. It could hardly have been carried out in any other way and I wanted it like this, deliberately. One can, therefore, not consider Berlin as a central office as existed, for instance, in the firm of Krupp. That was a central office for the management of the works. That was a firm a hundred years old; the owner was Krupp.
MR. ERVIN:Defendant, it is past the time for the morning recess and I don't think we need to hear the details about the Krupp office. I suggest that we have the recess at this time.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, we will allow you to continue at the close of 15 minute recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL:The Tribunal is again in session. BY MR. ERVIN:
QDefendant, concerning your participation in Vorstand meetings and discussions of the steel group, I have a compilation here as to Maxhuette from the period January, '36 to December '38. You attended 32 of 34 such discussions and meetings and as to Mittestahl, from September '34 to July 1940 you attended 36 out of 40 Vorstand meetings and discussions. Does that accord with your recollection?
AWould you please show me this compilation?
QIt is a record of the minutes and discussions of the Vorstand meetings, listing those present. Do you remember that you attended that many?
AAs I understood you, you said from January 1936 until 1938. You said that I took part in 32 meetings of the Maxhuette. Did I understand you correctly?
QIt is a file of Vorstand meetings and what are called Vorstand discussions which took place in the period from '36 to '38.
AYes, that I participated in 32 Vorstand meetings, yes, 32 Vorstand meetings.
QMonthly meetings?
AThat is alleged: I can only say that I must contest having participated in 32 Vorstand meetings of the Maxhuette unless you prove the opposite by submitting documents to that effect. According to my opinion I did not participate in 32 meetings of the Maxhuette throughout my whole life, certainly not within two years.
QWhat is a Vorstand discussion?
AMonthly Vorstand discussions of the Maxhuette I did not attend either. I can give you an approximate survey as to how often I attended Vorstand discussions with Maxhuette. I assume that generally three times a year I visited the plant for one clay. Starting from spring of 1942 these visits became somewhat more extended because of purely personal reasons. My oldest son had become engaged and then married the daughter of the general director and I had to attend all these family festivals which took place at the Maxhuette at Rosenberg. Whenever I went there on the occasion of a family festival of my daughter or son, it was always a matter of course that I visited the plant and greeted the Vorstand there and held a discussion with them.
Since my youngest son in the year of 1943 to 1944 had his commer cial education with Maxhuette, this was a further reason for my visiting the plant there on frequent occasions, and on those occasions discussions were had.
From the beginning of 1945 I left Berlin altogether and moved to Bavaria intending to open up my office at the Maxhuette plant.
During this period from February to March, 1945, I was consequently frequently present there because a part of my Berlin office had moved into the of fices of the Maxhuette at Rosenberg.
Ordinarily there could only have been very few Vorstand meetings of Maxhuette during the year.
There cer tainly were discussions on the occasion of visits to the plant.
There was certainly a meeting on the occasion of the balance sheet, and I am sure that now and again there was a conference with one or the other gentlemen because of some special reason.
I should like you to show me these thirty-two meetings.
Q.- Including all those discussions that you were talking about just now, your recollection apart from the documents would be that it could amount to thirty-two such discussions?
A.- Within a period of two years -
Q.- Three years. Three years.
A.- Three years. I really can't imagine it. Perhaps whenever Ter berger was in Berlin and had something to discuss with Burkart and per haps said "hello" to me for a quarter of an hour, one can hardly con sider that a meeting of the Vorstand.
Q.- Now as to Mittelstahl in the four year period from 1934 to 1940 -- I am sorry, a six-year period -- as to Vorstand meetings and Vorstand discussions as the memoranda are headed, would your recollection be that you could have attended thirty-six of those?
A.- Within six years?
Q.- Just about six years, yes.
A.- Well, meetings and discussions I consider to be possible, yes.
Q.- Now, you did select the members of the Vorstand?
A.- The members of the Vorstand were selected by me and the appro val of the committee and of the entire Aufsichtsrat was then obtained.
Q.- And if any occasion had arisen where the management was not to your satisfaction, you could change the Vorstand, isn't that right?
A.- I couldn't carry out a change according to my personal likes or dislikes, but only within the framework of the agreements, statutes and laws which must be considered in that connection.
Q.- That is, if you had differing opinions about the management of the concern, quite apart from any personal dislikes, if you had one view and a Vorstand member had another, you could change -- remove him and select a man who would manage in accordance with your wishes, isn't that right?
A.- I don't think you can say that that is correct without limi tations.
I could have removed him, perhaps by using the share regula tions by adhering to the laws which ahd to be considered in that con nection.
A member of the Vorstand in Germany according to the share laws dated 1937 could be dismissed by a vote of no confidence of the Gene ral Assembly.
That was the prerequisite. From a point of view of share power, that possibility was given, but to remove a Vorstand member without giving any reason merely on the basis of arbitrary situations of power would have been theoretically possible; only one had to adhere to regulations.
Practically this matter looks entirely different. I don't believe that I even in the case of Mittelstahl would have dis missed a member of the Vorstand without deeming it necessary to first explain to the Aufsichtsrat my reasons for doing so.
The other members of the Aufsichtsrat who did not represent any shares but who certainly were prominent figures in German economy as, for instance, the Geheim rat Buecher, the General Director of AEG or Ernst Muenzen, the General Director of the Vereinigte Stahlwerke certainly would not have under stood any such course and they certainly would have protested against it.
They would never have agreed to play the part of straw men and dolls by adhering to the dismissed of any members of the Vorstand of long years tithout any specific reason being given for it. In the case of other companies, where the assets were not as large as in the case of Harpen, that is for hard coal, etc., such a course would never have been considered since the majority of the Aufsichtsrat of these companies was not part of my group, but rather we in the Augsichtsrat were only represented in a minority.
Q.In the general meeting *---* Harpen, you did hold a share majority, did you not?
A.According to votes, yes, we held the majority of the shares; but we were not the majority in the Aufsichtsrat. There we had a minority.
Q.If a decision ever came to a general meeting in Harpen, you did have a control?
A.I had no majority in the Aufsichtsrat. I stated that of course there was an opportunity to get a number of our members into the Aufsichtsrat in order to form a majority there. Theorically at least, but we did not make use of that opportunity, because it would have been very foolish.
Q.The Aufsichtsrat, as I understand you, was elected at a general meeting. Is that right?
A.Yes, but not the Aufsichtsrat as a whole. This was done over a period of from four to five years. A majority shareholder can substitute two or three of the members by representatives of his own group; in the course of four or five years, if he wants to, he can get a majority into the Aufsichtsrat.
Q.You had the voting cntrol of Harpener, that is,the only shares that voted in the general meeting, from what date?
A.The majority of the voting control was held by us from 1935;
I think it was either the summer of fall of 1935.
Q.Defendant, you told us a little about the functions of the other defendants in the dock. I believe I understood you to say that your General plenipotentiaries did not have any authority over each other. They were all on an equal basis. Was that true of Steinbrinck also prior to 1939 when he left?
A.I believe yes, sir.
Q.That is, Steinbrinck was in the nature of a deputy to you, your right-hand man?
A.He was my first collaborator.
Q.In connection with--
A.He was also deputy in many questions.
Q.In connection with Steinbrinck's leaving the Flick Concern, did the initiative come from him, or did it come from you?
A.Steinbrinck expressed the wish to leave the concern.
Q.Do you remember about when that was?
A.He expressed that desire I believe in the year of 1938. He actually left at the end of 1939.
Q.There was not any real dispute between the two of you, was there?
A.There was a general alienation, enstrangement, if I may call it that. We no longer understood one another as well as before.
Q.Had he handled any of the concern affairs contrary to your instructions?
A.I can hardly say that.
Q.His SS-Membership did not have anything to do with it?
A.I do not believe so. These are matters of a personal nature. The family plays a part and I do not like to talk about it here.
Q.Very well, Defendant, we will drop the subject. After Steinbrinck left, you had three principle deputies. Would it be possible to describe any one of them as your first collaborators?
A.No.
Q.But the three of them together constituted the only deputies that you had in the Berlin Office? That is, only the senior ones?
A.I believe one could well say that.
Q.I now have just a few questions about the other defendant, Terberger. Suppose that in Raabe's absence from Maxhuette, there was some occasion for Maxhuette to deal with government officials or representatives of anther concern at a high level so that Maxhuette should be represented by some one in authority. Would he be the man to attend the meeting?
Q.Whenever Raabe was not there, I certainly would assume so. I would assume that he generally took over the representation and decisive authority in the Vorstand. I think then he was the primus inter pares.
Q.Suppose some major questions concerning labor came up in Raabe's absence and had to be decided, such as the transfer of the administration of a camp for foreign workers from the plant to the Speer Ministry. Whose decision would that be?
A.I cannot answer this question with 100 per cent certainty because I was really never concerned with these matters. I left these things for the Vorstand as an internal matter. It was his own affair whether he employed workers land how he employed them. All of this was carried out without any participation on the pert of Berlin and in particular without any participation by me.
Q.We are not talking about your participation now. I was asking you whether that type of question would have been decided by Terberger in Raabe's absence. You say you do not know. Is that right?
A.I was just going to explain why I could not explain that with 100 per cent accoracy. I did not participate in these matters and that is the reason I do not know exactly how the Vorstand handled these matters. The Vorstand was responsible for the tecnical matters. They were the ones who dealt with the workers. How this question was dealt with in detail between the Vorstand members, I cannot say. I want to emphasize again that it is all a matter for the technical Vorstand. I think that whenever Raabe was absent. Wesemann must have cared for the camp and for the housing of the workers.
Q.You do not know that, though. You just told uw it was a matter for the Vorstand and a matter about which you had no knowledge.
A.I really cannot say exactly how this matter was handled, but the technical director was the ne who was responsible for all worder questions. He acted with full authority.
Q.Did you ever discuss with any of the Vorstand members in any of our plants the questions of foreign workers?
A.In regard to questions about foreign workers, we often had conversations on the occassional visits to the plants in the sense in which I already talked about it during my examination by my defense counsel.
Q.How often did you visit your friends?
A.That varied. The Huettewerke was visited on more frequent occasions because they were closer to Berlin. That is the smelting works. As a result of my entire development, I was much closer to the smelting plants. From the point of view of assets they played a much bigger part. As I said before that, apart from later visits prompted by personal reasons, I considered that I visited Maxhuette three times a year; Mittelstahl, three to four times a year but not more. I think that before the war, I paid two or three visits.
Court No. IV, Case No. 5.
-- per year to the coal-fields.
QDid you visit the coal-fields during the war?
AI hadn't quite finished.
QI beg your pardon.
AIn the case of hard coal, the Aufsichsrat meeting took place in the morning and then on that same day I always made a visit to one pit in the afternoon. The same was true in the case of the general meeting. I think that in addition to that, there may have been one more visit during the year. During the war, I think that there was not as much as one visit per year. To be quite clear, I don't think I visited the mines as often during the war as there were years of war in the case of hard coal. In the case of the car factories and railroad factories, this holds true to a much greater degree. I think that I did not see these factories more than twice throughout the entire war. Indeed, there are plants which I saw only once during the war. And certainly there are some which I didn't see at all, for instance, the Fella Works. I think I saw that on one occasion I made a private visit in February, 1945, but that was all.
QAt some time during the war you did visit the Steinkohle mines. What did you do on this trip? Did you go down a shaft? Did you go down the mine at all?
ANo, I did not.
QDid you see any workers at the camps?
ANo, it was a merely superficial visit which followed the Aufsichsrat meeting, and the Aufsichsrat dinner. It was a very sketchy visit which covered a large area. I think we saw something interesting there above ground in this sphere of new buildings. That especially held true at the Essener Hard Coal Works, which were then extended by a new gasoline factory. Then we went there or to the plant Hugo where new buildings were just being erected. These buildings were shown to me and to the other Aufsichsrat members by way of demonstration.
QDid you see any workers at all?