A group of four men were given an assignment to do some assembly work on a protected trestle. (I have shown such constructions in the slides.) Three of them carried out the order. The fourth refused. The Wehrmacht non-com came up, and, according to the report given me, he ordered the prisoner three times to carry out the order, whereupon the Englishman turned and walked away. Then this Geiman non-com, who was on guard duty, in his excitement shot the man. It was a terrible thing. This soldier was doubtlessly in the wrong. This was contrary to orders, and he was court-martialed. The Englishman was buried with full military honors. But Farben had nothing to do with the matter.
QI do not know what conclusions the Prosecution draws from the fact that prisoners-of-war were employed in the Farben plant at A uschwitz. Therefore, I want to ask you, were these Englishmen employed on production work, or were they employed only on construction and assembly work?
AOnly in construction and assembly work. They knew the Geneva Convention veiy well. We were aware of that, and we saw to it that the foremen who had to work with the Englishman. were instructed in the Geneva Convention.
QMy next question refers to the two affidavits of the two Ehglishmaa, Doctors Spencer and Robertson, who were prsioners-of-war. They are: (Spencer) Prosecution Exhibit 1486, Document NI-11707, Book 75, English Page 171; the affiant Robertson's document is in Document Book 75, Exhibit 1487, Document NL-11700, English page 173. In the Prosecution's opening statement, the conclusion was drawn that Farben had all sick Englishmen above 3% brought to work by force. Do you know anything from your own observation about this?
ANo, from my own observation I know nothing about it. But I know the following about the case. The care for the sick Englishmen was, of course, in the hands of the Wehrmacht Commander. I know that this Wehrmacht Commander, on one occasion when there was a strong rise in the number of the sick among the Englishmen, after this Reinhold case, approached a German doctor, the plant doctor, and asked him to carry out a check in the nature of an examination such as we are accustomed to in Germany for insurance companies.
Dr. Peschel, who was a reserve officer, put on his Wehrmacht uniform and went to the camp and examined the people. I don't know what decision he made; I do not know whether this instance reoccurred. At any rate, he had no instructions from Farben, and I am sure that he acted only as a doctor.
As to the number of the sick, I can say that there never was any question of 3%, and that the actual figure was always ten to fifteen percent. Furthermore, I can refer to the weekly social report No. 9 for 1944. That is the only statistic which I still have from that period; it indicates that of 933 Englishmen, 840 were used for work. That is 13% were sick. That confirms my recollection that the figure was not 3%, but was between 10%and 15%.
QDid you ever receive any complaints from the British prisoners-of-war?
ANo, I have no recollection of any complaints. I know what Schneider testified here, that the Swiss Red Cross, the Geneva Red Cross, came to see us twice and was quite satisfied with the camp,
QDid you yourself ever inspect the camp for the British prisoners-of-war?
AYes. I was there twice while the Englishmen were in Camp VIII, and once when they were in Camp VI. The second time was after the air raid; I wanted to see whether all precautions had been taken towards caring for the wounded, etc.
QDid any of the Englishmen ever come to you personally with a complaint?
ANo, never. The Englishman Coward who testified this must have confused me with someone else.
DR. SEIDL:Mr. President, at this point I should like to offer two more documents in Book 15, for Dr. Duerrfeld.
They are on pages 16 and 19 of the book. The first document is Document 1173, which will be Exhibit 160. The next document is on page 19, No. 1253, which will be Exhibit 161. Both are affidavits. The first is by the surgeon, Dr. Ulrich Peschel, and the second is by a certified engineer, Hans Wojis, dated 3 November 1947. BY DR. SEIDL:
QDr. Duerrfeld, it is unavoidable that I ask you a few questions in connection with certain affidavits of concentration camp inmates introduced by the Prosecution. Do you remember having met any of these affiants, some of wham testified here, at Auschwitz?
AYes. I recognized Tauber. I knew him by sight. And I knew Professor Eppstein by name.
QWhat do you remember about the witness Tauber? In what connection did you meet him?
AI remember having seen him as a foreman in the cement detail.
QHe was supervising that detail?
AYes, that's my recollection.
QAnd what do you know about Professor Eppstein, who worked, primarily, in the hospital of Camp IV?
AWhen I visited the hospital, Schoettel brought him to my attention. I tried to have him released by the management of the concentration camp, but this attempt failed. I didn't know whether he ever learned anything about the attempt; there was no reason to talk about it, since it was unsuccessful.
QWhy did you try to do something for Prof. Eppstein? I presume that you had not known him before?
ADr. Seidl, that was the first time that I heard of a Professor being locked up in a concentration camp; Schoettel said to me that he was a very famous and capable man. That was reason enough for me. I believed that this man could serve humanity better elsewhere, rather than in a hospital of a concentration camp.
QOtherwise you knew none of the witnesses called by the Prosecution here?
ANo, and in view of the large number of people who worked there, this is not in any way remarkable, especially in the case of these concentration camp inmates, since, aside from Tauber, Feinberg, Afrine, and perhaps Wollheim, none of them worked at the plant very long. The witnesses whom we have seen here were, most of them, members of the inmates' self-administration of the camp.
QWhat do you mean by inmates' self-administration?
AIn our internment camp, we said prominent people (Prominenz). That included all the functionaries, the clerks, nurses, doctors, kitchen employees, etc.
QI see. In these reports of the Prosecution's affiants, there are a large number of facts which we cannot go into in detail, of course. I should like, however, to ask you whether you agree in general with these statements of the Prosecution's witnesses.
ADr. Seidl, I should like you to distinguish between the testimony about the internal organization of the camp and testimony about events in the plant.
QWhat do you have to say about the contentions of the witnesses who refer to events in Camp IV proper?
AI can actually say nothing about that. Aside from what I said this morning, I know virtually nothing about conditions in the camp.
QAnd what about the testimony as to events at the plant? It is obvious that there is a great deal of contradiction here between what you have testified and what our affiants say, a few hundred in our document books, and what the Prosecution witnesses say.
AI should like to go into that, but I can do so only insofar as I experienced the matter myself or received reports on it. I cannot acquainted with everything that happened in the camp, in view of its size and the burden of technical, organizational, and social duties which I had to take care of, but as far as I can give an over-all judgment, I should like to say that in cases where I can judge the statements of the inmates, they are full of mistakes, misrepresentations, and enormous exaggerations.
At one point it seems to me that the affiants themselves must have known that they were mistaken.
QWell, we will go through some of these affidavits briefly. The first document to which I shall refer is Prosecution's Exhibit 1455, Document NT-4029, Pros. Document Book 75, English Page 111. This is the affidavit of Tauber, who says, to support his contention that the camp was overcrowded, that in October 1942 when the inmates moved into this camp, there were only two or three barracks. The witness Stern says, in another affidavit, that there were six to eight. Now you say that you came to Auschwitz in October 1942. You must know how many barracks were finished at that time.
AI know that there were twonty-five barracks ready for occupation; I am fortunately able to prove this by contemporary documents, i.e., the weekly report numbers 72/73, 74/75, and 76/77, in Book 17. They are Duerrfeld's documents 1401, 1403, and 1405. The reports of the Rue-Bauleitung show very clearly that on 18 October 1942 there were 25 barracks with three thousand beds. On the first of November 1942, five days later, thirty-two barracks, and two weeks later, on 15 November, there were four more barracks, making a total of thirty-six barracks for the men. If a man like the witness Stem is inaccurate, I must excuse it. I can perhaps say that it was one of the most startling features of this trial for me, to hear from this witness in the witness stand, in November, that twenty-eight members of his family had been victims of this mad persecution. I want to bow to the victims of this family and be silent.
QMy next question refers to Prosecution Document NI-7967. This is Prosecution Exhibit 1452, which is also in Document Book 75, page 187 of the English text, where the witness Schulhof testifies that, before the barracks were occupied in October 1942, Camp IV had been occupied once before by inmates, all of whom had been gassed because they were suspected of typhoid.
What can you tell us about that?
AThat is a mistake. The weekly reports show that Camp IV was never occupied until October 1942, because it was newly built.
QYou say that that can be seen from the weekly reports. Did you ever hear of the camp's being occupied by anyone before October 1942?
ANo, it was never occupied before that time. I saw that it was newly built.
QMy next question refers to Prosecution Exhibit 1469, Document NI-4191, also in Book 75, English text page 116, where the affiant Hess says that the water in Camp IV was undrinkable because there were typhoid bacillae in the drinking water, and Farben did nothing to improve these conditions. What do you know about that?
AThe supply of water for Camp IV was connected with that of other parts of the camp. In the fall of 1943, it was even attached to our new drinking-water plant. That was a very modern drinking-water plant, built according to the most hygienic specifications; we had it checked constantly; and the wells which supplied Camp IV at the beginning, as well as the entire plant wells, were also regularly checked, from the beginning, by the Reich Office for Air and Soil Purity (Reichsamt fuer Luft- und Bodenguete) in Berlin-Dahlem. Two or three professors came to Auschwitz at intervals of one to two months, perhaps as long as three months, to inspect all the wells. We ourselves had the greatest interest in seeing to it that the drinking-water supply was in order, and it was in order.
QI should like to come back again to the affidavit of the witness Tauber already mentioned, in which he refers to a letter in Which you are requested to turn over the plant. Do you recall getting such a letter?
AI remember the letter, yes, but it said nothing about turning over the plant, and it certainly said nothing about unbearable conditions. On the contrary, this letter was anonymous, and it was signed "National Liberation Committee" or something like that. It was a peculiar mixture of an expression of great confidence in me and a certain threat if the internees of the concentration camp were not protected if the SS allowed a catastrophe to occur when the Russians approached. I was happy to see this letter, because I saw that these people came to me, an outsider, and assumed that I could help them. And I did so.
QIn this connection I should like to offer just one document, which is in Book 15 on page 38. It is No. 918, an affidavit by Ingeborg Faber, a secretary in the Auschwitz plant, dated 9 December 1947. This affidavit deals with the letter just mentioned by the defendant. I offer it as Exhibit 162.
My next question refers to Document NI-9807 of the Prosecution, Exhibit 1476, in Book 75, Page 108 of the English text. This is an affidavit by the witness Wollheim, in which he states that the cement was onloaded and had to be carried three to five hundred meters, and that he had to do very hard work in welding. What do you have to say about these statements?
AActually, there are three. I don't want to say anything about the first two, the beds and the 500 meters, because that can already be seen from what I have said so far. As to the statement that welding is hard work, I should like to refer to the slide showing a woman welding a pipe. We had many women, German and foreign, trained as welders, and I believe, that as an engineer, I am in a position to judge that welding is not very heavy work. The women were glad to do that work.
THE PRESILDENT:The Tribunal will rise for its recess.
(The Tribunal recessed for fifteen minutes.)
(AFTER RECESS)
THE MARSHAL:The Tribunal is again in session. BY DR. SEIDL:
QDr. Duerrfeld, my next question refers to Document 4827, which the Prosecution offered as their Exhibit 1484, in Book 75 of the Prosecution on page 106 of the English. This is an affidavit of a certain Treister. There it is stated that it was forbidden for the inmates to seek the shelter in the air raid shelters. Was there a prohibition of the Plant Management to that effect?
AI believe I have already hinted at this particular regulation. In the beginning we only had one shelter completed, not only the inmates but all of the secalled reserve employees of the plants were ordered to leave the plant or to go to the extreme corners of the plant site that were not endangered, or to use the plant sheltered places under some machines or other high places in case of an air raid. That also applied to the inmates but as soon as sifficient shelter space was available all people working in the plant were supposed to go into these bunkers or shelters. They were supposed to go there and they had to go there without any difference.
QMy next question deals with Prosecution Exhibit 1465. that is NI Document 7184, also in Book 75 on page 71 of the English. That is an affidavit of a former inmate, Afrine, you may remember him. It is stated in that affidavit that 3000 people were killed. What do you know about that?
AI can refer to the affidavit of the competent Oberingenieur Franz from the firm of Wayss and Frey tag that built this chimney. The affidavit is in book 15, incirporated as my own document 1165. He confirmed what I remember, namely that this chimney was built over a period of 10 weeks, and that 12 men were engaged in building this chimney. It will become clear to you that on such a small chimney site, at the top which is only half foot in diameter at the top, -- with the corresponding platform, not more people could work at one time.
From that you can see that during the entire construction time, all of the people would have to crash from the reef 4 times a day in order to meet this figure.
QIn other words, you do not know anything about the fact that anybody lost his life during the construction of this chimney?
AI did not know of a single death case.
DR. SEIDL:Mr. President, the affiant of which the defendant has just spoken is in Book 15 of our Document book, on page 43. It is Document 1165, and I offer it as Duerrfeld Exhibit 163. It is an affidavit of the contracting firm that built this chimney, signed by the Chief Engineer Gotthard Franz.
The same affiant describes in his affidavit that even after the 18th of January, 1945, he was still in Auschwitz. It was mentioned repeatedly that on the 18th of January 1945, Camp IV was evacuated.
QWhat have you to say about that?
AThat is correct. The camp was evacuated by night on the 18th of January. It was three days before the time when I received the evacuation order by the Reich Defense Commissary on the next morning, that is, early in the morning of the 19th of January, - I immediately went to Camp IV, because I wated to get it ready to take in those people from our foreign workers camp in which serious destruction had been wrought by the air attacks. I was outraged when I found some inmates still in the camp that morning that had been locked into the camp without a signle SS man still being there. I immediately had this camp opened with the proper tools. I then went inside and found that the SS had locked in approximately 700 prisoners, whom they did not consider fit for the march, and the witness Afrine apparently was one of these 700 inmates, who owe their freedom and safety-to my measures. I had the camp provided with water, because the water conduit had been destroyed, by an air raid. I had food furnished, and I saw to it that the food distribution functioned immediately.
I showed these prisoners personally where the food storehouses were, where our potatoes weresstored, in the event that we too night have to evacuate our plant suddenly.
QYou say that 700 inmates were left in the camp without any SS superpervision; weren't you afraid to go in among these people?
ADr. Seidl, what should I have been afraid of? Certainly not of the inmates. Dr. Seidl, I was so sure of myself that I would be considered by the inmates as their savior and friend, that I did not have even the idea that if I went into this camp Without arms and all alone, anything could happene to me. At the gate of the camp my driver was stationed whom I had at that time. He was the Czech citizen Sobol from Teschen, and he himself was a former prisoner. he was my driver.
QIn several Prosecution affidavits it is asserted that you yourself at one time had been present in Camp IV when a selection of inmates took place, according to their fitness for work What can you say about that?
AThe one statement says that I was present on the parade ground; the other one says that I was stationed near the gate. It is correct that in the summer of 1943, as I have already testified, I watched the marching out of the inmates, because I wanted to do something that might help the inmates. During the entire march that lasted 28 minutes, I did not see anything out of the ordinary. Next to the gate where I was standing, right next to the guardhouse, the leader of the labor employment was also stationed, and there also the former Camp Commander Schoettel hadtaken his place. He came down to see it because I had told him I was coming to see it. I cannot imagine that after I had advised him of my visit the commander would make any sort of selection because he would have to be afraid that I might notice something.
I remember that morning when the people marched out of the camp and one single man was sent back because he had absolutely impossible shoos, That was the sum total of my observations, and for the rest, the whole event was conducted in a quiet military, orderly manner. That was the only time when I witnessed such a march out of the camp, apart from this one short glance that I threw at the people coming in , which I have already described this morning.
Q.Were you over present at a roll call among the inmates of the parade grounds that you have described this morning?
A.No, never, I don't know how such a roll call was held. I never saw it, and it didn't interest me, either, and I had nothing to do with it.
Q.Now, you testified that on several occasions you repeatedly talked to Obersturmfuehrer Schoettel, Could you please once more describe very briefly what the subject of your conversation with him was when you did have such a conversation?
A.The current work was done by the gentlemen, Fricke and Fischer as I have already stated, and the basic problems which were discussed by Mr. Faust and myself together always dealt with questions such as fixing the working time, the recess time, and the sequence in which these people were to march out, so that none of those details should leave the place first that had the shortest route but those that had the longest route to go. Then there was also the question of lack of export workers, also problems of discipline, and complaints about clothing or treatment of the inmates bytheir Kapos, and such problems.
Q.I want to ask you a few things about those documents of the prosecution dealing with punishments. You will note that the prosecution submitted a number of documents by which they try to show that in the Auschwitz plant of Farben there was harsh punitive system initiated by the plant management. The first document of this type is prosecutions exhibit 1449, document NI-10166, in Book 74, on Page 57 of the English.
That is a creditacpplication of the Auschwitz plant of Farben for a detention barracks. What do you know about this entire event?
A.I do know this instance. I saw this barrack containing detention cells, but please you must take into account for a minute that there were 30,000 people at Auschwitz, Dr. Seidl. That is the size of a medium town. Even in a medium-sized town, let's take Kulmbach which was right near by, there are certain robberies that occur, and perhaps there might be a brawl in an inn some evening, or something like that, because some of these 30,000 people have a bad character. If you take any number of people at random, a certain amount of them will have a bad character; let's say one per cent of them will be bad; in the case of 30,000, that is 300 people. You must imagine that these 300 people have to be shownthe proper way at some time or another, and I do not believe that from the mere presence of a detention barracks or a prison in a city one can conclude that all the citizens are being enslaved or perhaps even that the mayor of that town has a bad character or is inhumane. For the rest, the city of Auschwitz had no prison, and that was the reason why the local police demanded that Farben should also take care of that requirement, and they demanded that Farben build a barracks with detention cells. That was how this came about.
Q.My next question refers to prosecution's exhibit 1451, NI-11007, in Book 74 on Page 64 in the English. That is the minutes of an interrogation of the political department of the concentration camp about a dollar transaction that took place between an inmate and a civilian worker of the plant. I want to ask you, did you ever hoar anything about this event?
A.No. From the document it can be seen that was the exclusive affair of the plant police or the counter intelligence agent, Colonel Niebmann. I do not know this particular event.
Q.I now turn to prosecution's document, 1447, that is NI-11038.
This is again to be found in Book 75 of theprosecution on Page 113 of the English. The subject of this affidavit is a report to the SS Obersturmfuehrer Schoettel abut some hiding place -- about the fact that some inmate was kept hidden some place. Do you know anything about it?
A.I didn't know this particular event, but from the original in the hands of the Secretary-General, I saw that this report was signed by Diplom Engineer Montuar of the power plant department, and that the inmate in question was an inmate working with the Italian firm of Stoelker. I do know Montuar. Unfortunately, he is dead. Nine months ago he suffered a fatal accident. He was a Ministerialrat of the Hessian State Government. But I know that this man was a very conscientious engineer, and I assume that this was a very serious accident, for otherwise he would not have made such a report. Who can really know now without knowing the incident in detail what conflict of conscience preceded the writing of such a report? Who knows whether perhegps this man did not hide out somewhere and that he was found perhaps by a member of this Italian firm of Stoelker, and that he was surprised while trying to escape, and that he perhaps tried to keep in hiding until the inmates left in the evening and then tried to escape. That happened sometimes. What should this Montuar have done, if we assume that this is what really happened? If he did not turn in a report, then he would risk his freedom because that meant he was an accomplice. If he does report, then that might mean the life of this inmate. Perhaps he chose the compromise and wrote that this fellow merely tried to hide away.
Q.The prosecution submitted five further reports about punishments from Monowitz camp. These are Exhibits 1478, 1479, 1481, 1482, and 1483. They are all in Book 75 and those are all documents from the labor camp Monowitz and not from Farben. Can you, as a former chief of the plant, recognize from these documents what events they deal with?
A.No, one cannot see anywhere that Farben developed the initiative to make these reports. In one instance, one can see that this fellow concerned is a member of the firm of Prestell. I do not know any of these events described in these documents, and I didn't know the very fact that such reports were made. To be sure, the largest part of these reports were based on reports of the SS patrols in the plant, and I assume that that was the cause for those five reports, because otherwise a report by Farben on the events would have been found attached to the report rendered by the SS.
Q.You testified that you personally didn't know of these reports of Farben or any offices of Farben to the camp administration. But did you know that such reports may be made, or that such a possibility existed?
A.Yes, I did know that. I myself, even recommended that in the case of serious difficulties, or complaints, one should never try to take matters in one's own hands, but, as the commander himself wanted it, to inform the labor employment agency of the SS, or in the case of non-urgent affairs, these reports were to go by way of the labor employment office within the construction planning.
Q.Why did you want to include the labor employment office of the construction management in this course? What was the purpose?
A.First, it is in accordance with the national principle that only one office within the plant should deal with any outside office, and then because in this way there is a certain sieve or filter channeling all these reports.
Q.The administration of Camp IV, the SS administration of course must have had a certain regulation that was made the basis of any disciplinary measures. I don't want to investigate what this regulation was called, whether it was called camp regulation or disciplinary regulation, but I want to ask you what did you know about this regulation?
A.Nothing.
Q.Didn't you have any ideas about the manner in which the SS was going to maintain discipline in Camp IV? What punishments they might mete out? You say that that was the exclusive affair of the SS. But I nevertheless want to know from you what ideas you had about this matter at the time.
A.I had the same idea that I found confirmed during my own internment. In such a camp life, there are a groat number of metheds in which one can mete out punishment. A special additional job might be given to an inmate or an internee. He may be deprived of his leisure time, or perhaps part of his food might be kept from him, or he might be ordered to stand at attention while others are permitted to walk about, or he might be transported from one barracks to another less pleasant barracks. All those things I witnessed myself and experienced myself, and that was my idea about it at the time.
Q.The prosecution submitted several documents from which one might see that corporal punishment existed in Camp IV, but one can also see that not even the commander of Camp IV was responsible or competent for meting out this punishment but the WVHA in Berlin. Did you hoar anything about that?
A.At some occasion I heard that corporal punishment existed in concentration camps, but together with that report I also heard that the COURT VI CASE VI commander of any camp was not permitted to mete out such punishments unless they were approved by a central Berlin agency.
I was also told at the time that for that reason corporal punishment was practically without effect because the entire affair, so to speck, was obsolete before the approval had arrived from Berlin.
Q.That concludes this subject matter. I now turn to the last chapter in our examination, and the following questions refer to another part of your activity that has nothing directly to do with Auschwitz. They refer to the Fuerstengrube that has been repeatedly mentioned here. Dr. Buetefisch also made detailed statements about it while in the witness box so that we can be brief about it here. First I want to know, did you have a leading position in the Fuerstengrube GmbH?
A.No.
Q.Who was the chief of the Fuerstengrube GmbH?
A.The sole business manager of Fuerstengrube GmbH was General Director Falkenhahn, whom we have soon here in this courtroom, and the mining director of Fuerstengrube GmbH was Assessor Duellberg.
Q.In your capacity as construction and assembly manager, did you have any right of issuing instructions or directives to these gentlemen for your mining enterprise?
A.No.
Q.Did you have this right by any other method to prove, such as through Professor Krauch or by any other way? Did you have the possibility of giving any orders to Director Falkenhahn?
A.No. I didn't have that possibility. The Fuerstengrube was part of the economic group mining industry, and Farben belonged to economic group Chemistry. It was an entirely different organization in other words. As the representative of Professor Krauch, I only had coordinating and synchronizing functions--functions in the nature of a trustee, but I had no authority to issue directives. Moreover, the new mines, although necessary for chemistry, were not taken care of by Professor Krauch the Gebechem, but by the Reich Ministry of Economics. Finally, in order to obviate any doubt, I want to say that I was an engineer and not a minor.
Q.The gentlemen, Ambros and Buetefisch, already made detailed statements about this point; nevertheless, I want to ask you, couldn't you have had a possibility by way of those two gentlemen of interfering in the administration of this mining enterprise?
A.I doubt very seriously whether General Director Falkenhahn would have permitted Dr. Buetefisch or Ambros to interfere with his affairs, but he certainly would not have permitted interference from an Oberingenieur of Farben who by the way was 20 years younger than he, who didn't understand anything about mining, and who also was tactufl enough to respect the old gentleman, Mr. Falkenhahn, as the dignified representative of an age-old mine. From my superiors, I was only given the directive that I should try to help those people with whom we had business contacts wherever possible and wherever necessary.
Q.My next question refers to prosecution exhibit 1556, NI-12010, which was later handed in by the prosecution. That is the affidavit of General Director Falkenhahn that you know, and he says in this affidavit, I quote, "With reference to the defendant Dr. Buetefisch, only because of his, Buetefisch's, authority the people in Farben/Auschwitz derived the right of actively participating in the construction of Fuerstengrube or Janina." What can you say about this?
A.Here Mr. Falkonhahn is mistaken. I don't know of a single case in which I or my associates interfered on our initiation in the construction or the administration of Fuerstengrube. We only interfered upon the request of Mr. Falkonhahn whenever we were supposed to assist him in any way.
Q.Can you give any examples to the Tribunal about the manner in which Farben in Auschwitz assisted these people from this enterprise?
A.Yes, I remember, for instance, through intervention with the central agencies in Berlin in regard to the assignment of certain quotas of iron and other building materials. I further remember assistance which construction manager Faust granted upon the request of Professor Hermann. During largo intervals of time he visited the site and advised the COURT VI CASE VI construction chief there from his wealth of experience.
Faust also got a suitable construction engineer for these people there. I also did so, and these were people who didn't come from Farben. Finally, I remember the assistance which Farben/Auschwitz rendered in regard to the camp administration and the camp feeding of the workers' camps.
Q.You said that the Farben plant at Auschwitz assisted in the case of the administration and feeding of labor camps. Why was this done? What caused you from Farben at Auschwitz to assist an outside firm in that respect?
A.Well, perhaps we might have been better off if we hand't done so, but I remember this event very well. Assessor Duellberg one day arrived very much worried and told me that he had serious difficulties with the firm managing the camp; that is to say, that is a firm which was hired by Fuerstengrube in order to carry out all those functions that had to do with the management and feeding of the camp. He said that complaints had been made about this firm, but he, so he said, didn't understand enough about those things and therefore he asked that our experts from Farben in Auschwitz with their wealth of experience should advise him what to do. In that manner, Dr. Rossbach, as the chief of our camp administration, and Dr. Savelsberg and Mr. Reinhold, as our specialists in the food field, gave Duellberg their advice. The result of the consultation was that Duellberg asked the Farben plant in Auschwitz to take over those functions which the firm of Bromel had at the time. That happened in June of 1943.
Q.Well, and what was the success of this measure that was taken?
A.It was done although those gentlemen and I too had certain inhibitions of carrying this out because we had enough work and responsibility already, but the success was that Mr. Falkenhahn as well as Mr. Duellberg and also the other supervising agencies after we took over these camps expressed their satisfaction about the improvement of the overall conditions. At no time did I hear any complaints, and in a connection therewith, I never heard any mere about the affair apart from the statistical list according to which our restaurant enterprises and employee relations department was working there.
Q.Were these labor camps of Fuerstengrube turned into labor camps of Farben with this measure or was there any change in their status?
A.No, they didn't become Farben camps by any means for otherwise, when the firm of Bromel was still cooking the food, the camps would have been Bromel camps. But, in effect, the plant management of Fuerstengrube still and always bore the full responsibility for those camps and the employees of Farben in Auschwitz were responsible to Fuerstengrube.
Q.The prosecution, during cross examination of Dr. Buetefisch, submitted a document in that connection bearing the name of Farben on the letterhead. That is NI-11175. That was Prosecution's Exhibit 1740. How do you explain that?
A.If this says Farben then it is wrong and can be explained only because of the attitude of a small clerk who is proud of his Farben Aktiengesellschaft and who wanted to designate himself as a Farben man on the letterhead.
Q.Very well. Did you have any interest in furnishing Fuerstengrube with food and the Janina Grube with food? Was there any of your subordinates - Mr. Savelsberg or Reinhold or somebody else - interested in furnishing food to these people?
A.Certainly not I and none of my associates either. We figured out our self costs and Fuerstengrube reimbursed us. It was just a friendly act toward Generaldirektor Falkenhahn.
Q.How often did you visit Fuerstengrube? Can you tell me that from memory?
A.Yes. Approcimately five or seven times.
Q.Did you see inmates working there too?
A.Yes, on the last two occasions, but they were never working underground. Only on the construction site of the new Fuerstengrube where conditions were similar to our Auschwitz plant as far as I could see.
Q.How often did you visit Janina-Grube?
A.Three times.
Q.Did you see inmates there as well?
A.No, never because, from the middle of 1943, on, I was not there any more.
Q.Did those camps and did those gentlemen who ware made available by the employee relations department of Farben have anything to do with labor employment?
A.Although I do not know anything else about their activity, I can say with certainty that they had nothing to do with the labor employment because both gentlemen - Rossbach and Savelsberg - told me at the time that the functions were distributed in the same manner as we were accustomed to have it in Auschwitz in our plant. That meant that both could not have had anything to do with the employment of labor.
Q.In the course of proceedings before this Tribunal the prosecution has handed in two documents additionally which are intended to show that Farben took over the control and responsibility for labor ouestions in these mines. These are Prosecution's Exhibits 1740 and 1741. That is a report about the number of people in the camp and a letter about a transport of food stuffs. Do you remember both of these documents? what can you say about their contents?
A.Yes, I remember the two documents as I have seen them here. That is, they show by the fact that they are addressed to Fuerstengrube G.m.b.H. quite the contrary, namely that the employees we made available were responsible to Fuerstengrube and had to report to than and not to Farben in Auschwitz.
Q.My next question refers to Exhibit 1552. That is in Book 81 of the prosecution. It is Document NI 10535. That is a letter which you wrote yourself to Mr. Duellberg and the prosecution tries to show in this letter that you did have some connection with the situation there. Do you remember that letter?
A.Yes.
Q.What was the reason for this letter at the time?
A.This again was a friendly act from which the inmates were to benefit particularly the Hauptsturmfuehrer Schwarz, who was in charge of these labor camps in Fuerstengrube and Janina-Grube, knew that we were very magnanimous with distributing rubber boots and in the case of any work where moisture or water was abundant we distributed these rubber boots.