THE PRESIDENT: In that discussion, did they make findings of fact?
MR. DENNEY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps, then , if you expect that to be part of the proof-- and undoubtedly you do -- it ought to be read into the record.
MR. DENNEY: If Your Honor pleases.
If Your Honor pleases, this is from pare 1** of the Judgment cf the International Military Tribunal, which is being quoted from the official text in the English language, published in book form at Numberg in 1947:
"The Planning of Aggression: The evidence from captured documents has revealed that Hitler held four secret meetings to which the Tribunal proposes to make special reference because of the light they shed upon the question of the common plan and an aggressive war.
"These meetin ;s took place en $ November 1937, 23 May 1939, 22 ..uaust 1939, and 23 November 1939. At these meetings important declarations were made by Hitler as to his purposes which are quite unmistakable in their terms. The documents which record what took place at these meetings have been subjected to some criticism at the hands of defending counsel. Their essential authenticity is not denied, but it is said, for example, that they do not propose to be verbatim transcripts of the speeches they record; that the document deal with the meeting of 5 November 1937 is dated five days after the meeting had taken place, and that the two documents dealing with the meeting of 22 August 1939 differ from one another and are unsigned.
"Making the fullest allowance for criticism of this kind, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the documents are documents of the highest value and that their authenticity and substantial truth are established. They are obviously careful records of the events they describe, and they have been preserved as such in the archives of the German Government, from whose custody they were captured. Such documents could never be dismissed as inventions nor even as inaccurate or distorted. They plainly record events which actually took place."
They again refer to the document:
"On 23 May 1939 a meeting was held in Hitler's study.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: The page?
MR. DENNEY: Page 198, sir.
"On 23 May 1939 a meeting was held in Hitler's study in the new Reich Chancellery in Berlin. Hitler announced his decision to attack Poland and gave his reasons and discussed the effect the decision might have on other countries. In point of time, this was the second of the important meetings to which reference has already been made, and in order to appreciate the full significance of what was said and done, it is necessary to state shortly some of the main events in the history of German-Polish relations."
Then, on Page 200, it was four weeks after making this speech, that Hitler on May 23, 1939, held the important military conference to which reference has already been made. Among the persons present were the defendants Goering, Raeder and Keitel. The adjutant on duty that day was Lieutenant Colonel Schmundt, and he made a record of what happened, certifying it with his signature as a correct record. The purpose of the meeting was to enable Hitler to inform the heads of the armed forces and their staffs of his view on the political situation and the future action after analyzing the political situation, and in view of tire course of events since 1933 Hitler announced his decision to attack Poland. He admitted the quarrel with Poland over Danzig was not the reason for this attack, but the necessity for Germany to enlarge her living space and secure her food supply. He said, "The solution of problems demands courage. The principle by which one evades solving the problem by adapting to one's self the circumstances is inadmissible. The circumstances must rather be adapted to needs. This is impossible without invasion of foreign states or attacks upon foreign property." Later in an additional statement he added, "There is therefore no question of sparing Poland. We are left with the decision to attack Poland at the first suitable opportunity. We cannot expect a repetition of the Czech affair. There will be war. Our task is to isolate Poland. The success of the isolation will be decisive. The isolation of Poland is a matter of skilful politics". Lieutenant Colonel Schmundt's record of the meeting reveals that Hitler fully realized the possibility of Great Britain and France coming to Poland's assistance. If therefore the isolation of Poland could not be achieved, Hitler was of the opinion that Germany should attack Great Britain and France first or at any rate should concentrate primarily on the war in the west in order to defeat Great Britain and France quickly or at least destroy their effectiveness. Nevertheless Hitler stressed that war with England and France would be a life and death struggle which might last a long time, and preparations must be made accordingly. That last appears on Pages 200 and 201, if Your Honors please.
If your Honors please, I believe initially I have already offered the findings with reference to the power and authority of the Central Planning, and I shall check that this noon to make sure that all the parts which are applicable are in the record, and if necessary then I can supplement what is there after luncheon.
THE PRESIDENT: I believe it is all there Mr. Denney, now.
MR. DENNEY: As I recall it I believe I have.
DR. BERGOLD: May it please this Tribunal, in connection with those things just read now by Mr. Denney, I would like to remind this Tribunal of the fact that not so long ago we already had a discussion about this fact if in these proceedings any more evidence could be submitted against the sins of the International Tribunal. I believe that in this hall I am the only one who had the honor to be directly present at the Internartional Tribunal. At the time I declared to this Tribunal here that the International Military Tribunal omitted a series of evidence, or rather did not listen to a series of evidence I submitted. In this case several witnesses were examined by me, Schniewindt, Engel, Raeder.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me interrupt you. This is not offered as considered binding upon this Tribunal. Under the terms of the ordinance this is part of the matter to be considered by this Court, but any other evidence, such as that you are now mentioning, will also receive due consideration, so don't be alarmed that we are prejudging on the basis that the International Military Tribunal forces us to.
DR. BERGOLD: Thank you.
MR. DENNEY: Thank you. We now offer as Exhibit 161 an affidavit by Walter Napp. If Your Honors recall he was the man who testified before Mr. Justice Beals' Tribunal. His testimony was read in here, and he was also called by Dr. Bergold, presented solely with reference to when a crematorium as far as this inmate's knowledge was concerned, was first erected at Dachau.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, Mr. Denney, you have handed us a transcript of the proceedings before the Military Tribunal, but you didn't mention if you wish it to be in the record.
MR. DENNEY: Yes, Your Honors, I am sorry. Have you already marked that?
DR. BERGOLD: I have to object to the introduction of this affidavit because of two reasons. Firstly, the Witness Napp was already here, and the witness testified in this Tribunal, and Mr. Denney had the opportunity to examine him. If Mr. Denney would have directed the questions then to Napp then I would have been able to bring here counter evidence with the examination of Obergruppenfuehrer Karl Wolff. However, due to the formal proceedings, this is now made impossible unless I have leave to call Wolff again, but this would lead to a trial that would never end, and I am of the opinion, therefore, that this affidavit should not be admitted in this particular case, because Wolff was examined after Napp, and at that time everything could have been cleared.
MR. DENNEY: It just happens that the prisoner who was in Dachau can say that there was a crematorium there in 1940 testified before Obergruppenfuchrer Wolff. I didn't know what his witness Wolff was going to say. I didn't call Napp. I read in his testimony, and Dr. Bergold called him to cross-examine him. Now, if it presents any difficulties to your Honors why --
DR. BERGOLD: I have learned during recourse of my activity, before those Military Tribunals, that generally speaking, such affidavit's should not be submitted afterwards. I can also remember an objection which Mr. Denney made, namely with reference to an affidavit by Richter. At the time it was not discussed any further because it was not regarded relevant by the judges as far as I remember. The affidavit was not submitted by me as far as I recall. However, here an affidavit is being submitted that has more importance because this witness, Walter Napp, only speaks of hearsay in this evidence with reference to Wolff. He does not even state from his own knowledge. This makes my evidence more difficult.
MR. DENNEY: I don't know when hearsay has been inadmissible in this Tribunal. We have certainly had a lot of it.
THE PRESIDENT: Well let's try to salvage some of the fundamental rules of evidence, and one seems to be it is not permitted to make a collateral attack on an immaterial matter upon the testimony of a witness.
This is intended, to impeach the Witness Wolff, is it not?
MR. DENNEY: Yes, your Honor. I will be glad to withdraw it.
THE PRESIDENT: We will be glad to exclude it. Mr. Denney, will you explain to us about this transcript?
MR. DENNEY: Yes, this is a partial transcript from the testimony of the Witness Wuerfler called before Mr. Justice Beals' Court. Wuerfler was Chief of Staff to Hippke, and all this is offered for is to show that Wuerfler testified before that Tribunal. We are asking the court to judicially notice his testimony, that Wuerfler stated, on Page 3135 in answer to a question, "A few moments ago you mentioned that you met Dr. Rascher during the course of planning or preparing such a meeting at the Secretary of State's office; that is Secretary of State Milch, is it not?
"A Yes, Secretary of State Milch." And in the second answer thereafter the time is established as September 1942 and the witness says in that connection, "Well, the meeting should have taken place, and I shall picture the event as it was. That was in September 1942. With the 1st of September I was transferred to the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service. Since my successor had to be trained, and since at that time Generalstabarzt Hippke had to go on leave, I was periodically still active in the Luftwaffe Inspectorate. From this time I remember that I was suddenly called away from my work because of a telephone call. I don't know who called me. I was to report to the Secretary of States for the purpose of a discussion. This discussion did not emanate from the Medical Inspectorate, but was ordered by the Secretary of State. I went there by car, that is from my agency in the Aviation Ministry, and in the corridor before the Office of the Secretary of State I met a few of my acquaintances, and some people I didn't know, and among the people I know I think Dr. Romberg was present."
The next question, "Dr. Rascher was there also? "A I wanted to say Dr. Romberg.
"Q. Dr. Rascher and Dr. Romberg together?
"A. No, I don't know Dr. Rascher, I don't know, I asked what was this about, and I learned that a certain Dr. Rascher was to make a report. No further details were given to me. The beginning of that meeting was postponed since the State Secretary didn't appear when he was expected. Since I was taken out of my work, my double work, I became very impatient and I asked Dr. Rascher, whom I hadn't known before, for the information of what this whole thing was about. Dr. Rascher refused to give me any information, and he said that he had a special order by the Secretary of State. Because of the fact a younger medical officer refused to give me that information, I was very angry and left this group, and I said something of the nature, "If you have any secrets deal with them yourself."
Upon that I returned to my office.
DR. BERGOLD: May it please your Honors, according to my opinion the question must be decided upon basically. Mr. Denney from time to time submits reports from Military Tribunal No. 1, namely statements made by witnesses for which I was not a defense counsel myself, in which I was not present myself, and during which I can't develop the interests of my clients. Now, had I been present at that session, then, for instance, I would have asked the witness, or I would have been able to ask the witness how he knew that this meeting had been ordered by the State Secretary, as I know it could have been, or he would have had to give information and he didn't know it, and this was only one of his deductions. Furthermore, I would have been able to put before him if it is correct that Dr. Rascher spoke of a special deputy of the Secretary of State, or if he discussed the point that an order for secret meetings was received from Himmler, because all the witnesses who have appeared here so far have confirmed that the order to keep secret everything that was said had been given by Himmler, and Rascher referred to this secrecy order to Hippke. This, gentlemen, means if you accept this exhibit that I have to ask that the witness Wuerfler, who is outside of Nurnberg now, be brought back to Nurnberg so that I can question him on these various points, because this is of importance, if he really knew that Milch had ordered the meeting to take place, and it is also important to know if he did not refer, if he was not known with reference to this special order and if Rascher had not spoken of Himmler as Reichsfuehrer SS.
Your Honors, a trial is being carried on upstairs. There is constant difficulty that I have no opportunity to be present up there to guard my client's interest. They are introducting and many times they were talking about the admissibility of experiments which would be important for my case. I have no possibility to go up there. I am just one single man, and I am not given the possibility to be at both places at the came time.
Therefore I would like to request that this be withdrawn or that the Tribunal permit me to call the Witness Wuerfler to Nurnberg. I shall find out where he lives, and then we will just have to wait for him.
THE PRESIDENT: This seems to be much ado about nothing. Doesn't this exhibit show that Milch was not there, that they were all impatient? This exhibit indicates that Milch was not present, and the most incriminating thing, if it can be said to be that, in it, is that Milch called a certain meeting. This was the meeting at which the picture was to be shown, is it not?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, that is correct. However, your Honors, may I add one thing. You stated it is much ado about nothing. However, I have toe much respect for the wisdom of my opponent, that I have to take it that he is not submitting this affidavit for nothing, and therefore I have to object to it.
MR. DENNEY: In order that Dr. Bergold may not be confused I will withdraw the offer.
THE PRESIDENT: I was right, it is much ado about nothing.
MR. DENNEY: Just so the record will be straight, it is a matter of which the Court could take judicial notice, being part of the transcript of another Military Tribunal.
If your Honors will recall, I questioned the Witness Brandt, about 1971-PS, which was in evidence at the International Military Tribunal, and at that time I did not have copies of it to offer. I believe you will recall, Dr. Bergold, it was a letter from Himmler to Rascher of 13 April 1942, followed by a telegram from Rascher to Himmler in October, and then followed by a teletype from Brandt to Rascher in October. It was the question of Himmler's first instructions about the people who were to be pardoned, and then Rascher writes Himmler and says he wants to know whether if under Paragraph 3 prisoners in Dachau condemned to death who overcome tests which endanger their lives they should be pardoned, and then Brandt writes to Rascher and says please inform Rascher regarding the teletyped request that the decree of the Reichsfuehrer requesting the pardon of experimental subjects does not apply to Poles and Russians. Do you remember that?
We offer this as Exhibit 162. I trust I can get that number on something. 161, I guess it is. I will settle for one less. Your Honors, and I don't think the entire exhibit has ever been read so I will just read it into the record now, the first being a letter from Himmler to Rascher dated 13 April 1942. "Dear Dr. Rascher, I want to answer your letter with which you forwarded to me your report.
"The latest discoveries in connection with your research have especially interested me. May I request of you the following.
"1. These experiments should be repeated with men condemned to death.
"2. I would like Dr. Fahrenkamp to take part in these experiments.
"3. Those experiments should above all be evaluated for the purpose of seeing whether it is not possible, through this long functioning of the heart, to bring such people back to life. Should such an experiment of bringing back to life succeed, then it is to be understood that the person condemned to death will be commuted to life-long imprisonment in a concentration camp.
"Please keep me informed of further progress of the experiments.
"Friendly greetings and Hail Hitler!" Yours signed Himmler.
Then a telegram from Rascher to Himmler "Will you please clarify the following case with the Reichsfuehrer SS as soon as possible.
"In communication RFSS of 1.4.42 it is ordered under paragraph 3 if prisoners in Dachau condemned to death overcome tests which endanger their lives, they should be pardoned. As up to now only Poles and Russians were available, amongst them also persons condemned to death, it is not quite clear to me yet whether the above mentioned paragraph also applies to them, and whether they after overcoming several very severe tests they may be pardoned to lifelong KZ." meaning imprisonment in a concentration camp. "Beg for answer by teletype via adjutant's office RFSS Munich." It is signed respectfully, and then Brandt's reply to that of the 21 October 1942, dated at the top by 22 and 1942.
"Please inform SS-Untersturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher regarding his teletyped request that the decree of the Reichsfuehrer SS concerning pardoning of experimental subjects does not apply to Poles and Russians."
That concludes our offer of documents. Your Honor, we have one witness which we would like to call this afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: Will that conclude your proof?
MR. DENNEY: That will conclude our proof, yes, your Honor.
DR. BERGOLD: Just one more word. May it please your Honors, I only have one question with reference to this exhibit which has now been submitted, namely to the letter of the 13th of April 1942, I would like to say the following. If it is necessary that I allso submit more evidence, you will remember that I always tried to prove that Rascher. carried out secret experiments in Dachau, upon Himmler's orders, and it says here under A No. 3, "These experiments should above all be evaluated for the purpose of seeing whether it is not possible, through the long functioning of the heart, to bring such people back to life." We should hear Hippke on this matter, if such an order was ever given by the Luftwaffes, or if these secret experiments were the ones that I have looked for for a long time, that therefore I could prove that they were secret, namely that Rascher had special orders directly from Himmler. If the Tribunal tells me this, this exhibit would prove it sufficiently, then I do not need Professor Dr. Hippke any more.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is of the opinion that any farther evidence from Dr. Hippke on this point would merely be cumulative and that it has been sufficiently inquired into.
DR. BERGOLD: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Due to the late adjournment we will recess until two o'clock.
THE MARSHAL: This Tribunal is in recess until 1400 hours.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal No. II is again in session.
MR. DENNEY: If Your Honors please, I ask that the Marshal be directed to summon the witness, Krysiak.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: What language does he speak?
MR. DENNEY: German.
JOSEPH KRYSIAK, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE MUSMANNO:
Q Please raise your right hand and repeat after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE MUSMANNO: You will be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DENNEY:
Q What is your name?
A My name is Joseph Krysiak.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Please spell that, Mr. Denney.
BY MR. DENNEY:
Q Will you spell your last name?
A K-R-Y-S-I-A-K.
Q K-R-Y-S-I-A-K, I believe it is; is that right?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q When were you born?
A On the eighth of May, 1911.
Q Where were you born?
AAt Dortmund.
Q And Dortmund is in Germany, is it not?
A Yes.
Q Where did you go to school?
A First elementary school at Dortmund, then secondary school, and for the last eight years I went to internes' schools in Switzerland at Freiburg.
Q And what was your profession?
A I was a trained engineer and had a diploma in aircraft construction.
Q And when did you finish your schooling?
A Nineteen-thirty-six, at Berlin-Charlottenburg.
Q And thereafter did you go to work?
A I worked at the Focker works at Amsterdam, the Messerschmitt works at Augsburg.
Q What happened to you in 1940?
A On the ninth of December, 1940, I was arrested because of defeatist statements and anti-armed forces activities.
Q And where were you sent?
A I went to the concentration camp at Mauthausen for political re-training.
Q And where is Mauthausen located?
A On the Danube.
Q Near what city?
A In the neighborhood of Linz, on the river Danube.
Q What did you do for the first several months of your internment at Mauthausen?
A Until 1942 all of us worked in the quarry.
Q What did you do in the quarry?
A We had to carry stones which had been broken, and we had to load them.
Q And then did you change your employment?
A Yes, from November '42, armament work was carried out in every concentration camp.
Q Where did you go to work in November, '42?
A Beginning November, '42, the ME-109 was produced at Gussen I.
Q Where was that?
A In Gussen, which was a branch camp of Mauthausen, Gussen I.
Q And you still lived in the concentration camp while you worked there?
A Yes.
Q Did you live in a stockade?
A I was inside the camp, yes.
Q Did they have barbed wire around it?
A The camp and the place of work was surrounded by a chain of sentries.
Q And how would you describe the living conditions to the Court?
A Living and working conditions were the worst imaginable --- bad they were. Regular working hours amounted to twelve hours, and we had a watery soup at lunch, and in the morning we had coffee, and at night seven men shared a loaf of bread.
Q How were the living conditions?
A Living conditions were bad inasmuch as during this lack of food we had to work for twelve hours a day and we were beaten when we didn't reach the ceilings set for us.
Q Now, did these conditions continue until the end of the war?
A Yes. In fact, they increased during the approaching collapse.
Q Now, you say you worked at Gussen I, making the ME-109. Until when did you work there?
AAt Gussen I, I worked until February 1944; then at Gussen II in the so-called case the 262 was begun, the jet fighter plane; and I worked on that jet fighter until the collapse.
Q Now, were there other concentration camp inmates with you who worked in these jobs at Gussen I and Gussen II?
A No.
Q There were no other concentration camp inmates who worked there?
A Oh, yes. Yes, the inmates of concentration camps after 1944 came from camps dissolved from the East; and all that was transferred to Austria. Consequently, there were many prisoners amongst those who had previously worked in other armament production programs.
Q No, I don't think you understood my question. You say first you went to work in Gussen I?
A Yes.
Q In November 1942?
A Yes.
Q Were there other concentration camp inmates besides yourself who worked there in the factory?
A Oh, yes. In Gussen I, working on the ME-109, there were 3500 prisoners working, working on fuselage and wing construction.
Q In Gussen II how many concentration camp inmates were working in the factory?
AAt the time of the collapse 4800 detainees and *00 civilian workers.
Q Now, among these concentration camp inmates, will you tell the Court what nationalities you found?
A There were all nations represented, among them Norwegians, Swedes, Dutchmen, Belgians, Frenchmen, Italians, Yugoslavs, all the Eastern peoples; and there were also Americans and British there.
Q You say there were Americans and British in the concentration camp?
A Yes. Three Englishmen were with us in Gussen I; and Americans who had been shot down above Linz were with us for a few days at Gussen. Then they went to the mother camp at Mauthausen.
Q Did you talk to these men?
A Yes, one of them had been shot down. He came to the sick bay; and we talked to him. He gave us the news that we, the inmates of concentration camps, had nothing to fear since all concentration camps had been marked on maps.
Q Did they ever have inspections of the factories?
A Yes. Between the end of 1944 and the collapse, one inspection would follow the other.
Q Whom did you see at these inspections?
A Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, Gauleiter Eigruber, with his staff, and many people from the Air Ministry who came to check.
Q Did the conditions remain the same until the time of the collapse?
A Yes.
Q Incidentally, how many hours a day did you work?
A We were working at Saint George, Gussen II, for twelve hours. Also, the transport to and from work and back to this camp occupied two to three hours as well, so that these people altogether had only four to five hours sleep under the worst imaginable conditions. Four people had to sleep in one bed.
Q Did you work seven days a week?
A Yes, and the day and night shift, and Sundays, too.
Q You've told the Court about the nationalities who were in the concentration camp with you. Were there any Jews there?
A Yes.
Q Did there come a time when they brought Jews in from Hungary?
A Yes. The largest transport arrived in 1944 from Budapest. There we were concerned mostly with the intelligentsia from the city of Budapest.
Q When was that in 1944?
A I can't give you the exact date because one transport was following the other. It was in the summer of 1944.
Q You spoke about some planes which were shot down in the neighborhood of the concentration camp. Will you tell the Court what you saw?
A In July 1944 there was an air attack on Linz; and during that air attack, a number of American aircraft were shot down. They were four-engine bombers. The crew bailed out; and they were caught and taken to the concentration camp.
Q Were there inspections by Luftwaffe officers prior to 1944?
A Yes, beginning with the day when part of the armament program was transferred to the camp and particularly when the Messerschmidt production started, we had inspections monthly.
Q That was starting in November 1942?
A No, really not until the spring of 1943 when mass production had not going.
MR. DENNEY: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, you spoke of American and British prisoners of war being in this concentration camp. Were any of those working in the armament factories?
A. The Americans were up at Mauthausen, and Englishmen were at Gussen I. They were not directly used for armament work.
Q. What did they do?
A. The Englismen were working inside the camp, on camp work, and that varied.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: What effect did this work and this food and those accommodations which you have described have upon you and other inmaters in the concentration camp?
A. The most dreadful effect; the majority died in Mauthausen and Gussen II. It was a rule no one was released, but transports which were filled were where detainees would die.
Q. Could you give me any estimate on how many died in the camp in which you were located while you were there?
A. That would be difficult. I can only judge it according to the number of transports which arrived monthly; transports usually arrived from Ruschwits, from Holland and from France, and whenever any special action had taken place, and from the Balkans.
Q. Here there other prisoners of war of other nationalities besides the Americans and British in that camp?
A. You mean prisoners of war?
Q. Yes, prisoners of war, yes?
A. Yes, the Russians, and generally others, and the Yugoslavs.
Q. Were they also working in the airplane factories?
A. Yes, they had to work in the armament production.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: That is all.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, you have explained to the Tribunal that you sent to a concentration camp?
A. Yes.
Q. Did the SS take you straight into the concentration camp, or was there an intervening period?
A. No, the Gestapo took me immediately on the day of the protection on an arrest order, which was a red ticket.
Q. Did the Gestapo do that?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, you have told us that in 1944 large transports arrived from the East?
A. Yes.
Q. When in '44 was this?
A. It was the beginning of the Autumn of 1944. I think in October, these were larger transports.
Q. Yes, I understand that. Witness, I did not quite understand when the Americans were captured. Was it June or July, or the 1st of July?
A. Yes.
Q. The seventh month?
A. Yes, July 1944, during their attack on Linz.
Q. By whom were these Americans taken to camp?
A. It was after they had been shot down by aircraft guns, and they were taken to camp.
Q. By whom?
A. We were not present. We only saw them arrive in camp, since we could not walk outside the camp.
Q. How many days did they stay in camp?
A. They were in Gussen I two days, and then they went over to Mauthausen.
Q. Do you know how long they remained at Mauthausen?
A. No.
Q. Do you know when they left there?
A. No, I don't know.