Why is that?" I said: "Gruppenfuehrer, I'm extremely worried." "What's going on?" he asked me. "Well," I said, "Unfairly, somebody has denounced me with the Reichsfuehrer SS that I made a statement about Pohl which is not true and Himmler told Pohl, as Pohl himself told me, please send Volk to the front and take all his positions from him." Frank asked me: "What did you say to that?" I said: "Obergruppenfuehrer, if this is an honor, as Himmler maintains, to be sent to the front, then it would not be a punishment to me." And Pohl said thereupon: "I know you, Volk, I don't believe you said this. You stay with us."
That, of course, had poisoned the atmosphere considerably. Having told Frank my reasons, Frank said to me: "Well, Volk, I'm not allowed to say anything either. I'm going to clear out of here very quickly if things continue like this after the war.
Then, later on, two months later, Frank was suddenly transferred to the regular police, and I deduced, from that conversation, that he was glad to go to the regular police.
DR. GAWLIK: Witness, in connection with the Tribunal's question, can you tell us what a ghetto is? What is the difference between a ghetto and a concentration camp?
JUDGE PHILLIPS: We know that. No use to go into that. It's just taking up time.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Please take Document NO. 519, Exhibit 590. It is a letter of 9 February 1944, in volume 19 of Document Book, page 54 of the German document book. Can one see from that document how you stood at the time?
A No, that document is only a copy which I made about the conversation held between Baier and the officials of the Reich Governor. Baier told me at the time: "Our real attitude I think we'd better not put down in writing because otherwise the Reichsfuehrer will hear about it and we might be in for something", and, therefore, I merely wrote down this conversation as it took place with the Reich Governor. In this document I did not mention the name Baier but I always said "the representatives of the WVHA" because, if something should happen, I could always Court No. II, Case No. 4.say who it was because, after all, in Germany if you did anything for a Jew you had to expect that day after tomorrow you would lose your head.
Q Witness, do I understand you to say that this file is the result of the conversation but does not contain your personal opinion?
A No, I expressed my personal opinion personally to Pohl in the presence of Baier, and Pohl said: "I shall see to it myself that the ghetto will not become a concentration camp." That must have been on the 12th or 13th of February, roughly. Baier had seen Pohl first and he probably didn't quite make his point and so he said to me: "Volk, you come along too. I'll see what I can do about the Ghetto Litzmannstadt when I talk to Pohl. Last time, the Obergruppenfuehrer didn't have the time." So, Baier and I went together.
Q What did you do during the conversation? Did you have any important influence on the course of this conversation? What did you do?
A No, I merely kept the record in order to write it all down later on. I informed Baier on the Jew laws before because that is what he wanted to hear from me. How the Jew legislation was at the time and how the laws had been issued which Baier did not know.
Q Were you asked before a decision was reached during that conversation?
A No.
Q What is your explanation of that, witness?
A Well, Oberfuehrer Baier was the Chief of W, and I had nothing to say in this matter. It was not my task. Pohl had merely asked me to go with Baier and, as no other legal expert was available, to find out what the legal status of these enterprises was.
Q Well, tell us please, witness, the position taken by the other partners of this conversation, compared to yours.
A The people representing the Reichs Governor (Reichsstatthalter) wanted, at any price, that the WVHA would buy the enterprises from the Gau, the NSDAP. They wanted to have 20 million Reichsmarks. Baier simply laughed at them and Baier led the negotiations in such a way that it had to be discontinued, if not completely stopped. He did not want us Court No. II, Case No. 4.to take over these Jewish enterprises.
He did not want to have anything to do with it. One reason was that the enterprises were not very profitable. The other reason was that Baier, on the basis of his personal attitude, did not want to have anything to do with Jews and things of that sort. That is how I met Baier. This is how I got to know Baier. This was why I could talk to him frankly and openly. I must say, if Jews have been saved by the ghetto not becoming a concentration camp, that, to a considerable degree, this was Baier's merit.
Q The Prosecution has maintained that you were among those people in the WVHA who made the attempt to secure the ghetto, with its industrial enterprises and 80,000 Jews, for the Osti. Please give us your comment about that.
A. I had no authority to issue orders nor could I make assertions. I told you already that I only went along in order to find out what legal status these enterprises had. Himmler ordered that the enterprises must be transferred to Lublin, or that it must become a concentration camp. I did not wish to secure anything, I could do so anyway.
Q. Furthermore, the prosecution has maintained that the Reichfuehrer-SS intended to have the Ghetto put under Greiser's authority, is that correct?
A. The Reichsfuehrer had ordered that the Ghetto must be transformed into a concentration camp, which becomes clear from a Document in Volume 19. It is Document No-591. From paragraph 1 of this letter, it becomes clear that as early as 3 December 1943 Himmler, in the presence of Kaltenbrunner, gave the order to transform the Ghetto into a concentration camp and not to transfer the enterprises to Lublin. It is therefore incorrect for the prosecution to say that Himmler wanted to leave the concentration camp under Greiser's authority; whereas, I made the attempt to change the Ghetto into a concentration camp. The letter also shows that no visit of mine was necessary in this respect because the Reichsfuehrer had already issued the order. On the other hand, the Ghetto as an actual fact was not changed into a concentration camp. Himmler, therefore, rescinded his order of February 1943, which is another proof of the fact which I have testified to, that Baier and I, to a smaller degree, were successful in avoiding Himmler's order from being carried out.
Q. Herr Doctor, please take the document which beares the date of 14 February 1944. This is document NO-519, Exhibit 480, in Document Book 19, on page 44 of the English Document Book. Exhibit 480.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that Document 519?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That is Exhibit 490.
DR. GAWLIK: I apologize, Your Honor, it is 490.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. In this letter it says: "The Ghetto in Litzmannstadt is not to be changed into a concentration camp. This was emphasized by Dr. Baier and Dr. Volk in the conversation which we held in the Reich Governor's Office on 5 February 1943," is that correct?
A. Yes, that is quite correct. Oberfuehrer Baier and I were present. As I said before, I only had to keep the record. Oberfuehrer stated at the time that the Ghetto could not be changed into a concentration camp; and this letter again shows that Baier and I talked against the change during that conversation because it says expressly in this letter..... "The Ghetto is not to be changed into a concentration camp." We both emphasized that.
THE PRESIDENT: And it never was changed into a concentration camp, was it?
A. I never heard that it was changed into an official concentration camp.
THE PRESIDENT: It never was, was it, Dr. Gawlik?
DR. GAWLIK: No. As far as I can see from the files, it was not changed.
THE PRESIDENT: I wouldn't spend too much time on it then. This is something that never happened.
DR. GAWLIK: Well, I don't know what the prosecution has up their sleeve
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Robbins is just going to tell you.
MR. ROBBINS: I think the document shows, Your Honor, that SSIndustries were later operated in the Ghetto, and also as a result of the decision that was recommended by Volk and Baier the Ghetto was cleaned out and thousands of Jews were killed.
The issue there was whether or not to run the Ghetto on an economic basis or to wipe out the Jews, and the latter solution was reached.
THE PRESIDENT: I merely meant not to spend any more time trying to prove that the concentration camp was never established because you don't claim that it was.
THE WITNESS: Dr. Gawlik, would you please ask me questions now concerning the statement just made by the prosecution. I can give you an answer there immediately, if you like.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Were the enterprises in the Ghetto of Litzmanstadt enterprises of the WVHA?
A. If the enterprises in the Ghetto were directed by one of the enterprises of the DWB, surely I would have known about that; but I know that, with a hundred percent certainty, not one enterprise in the Ghetto was operated by the WVHA or taken by it. I know equally well that the man who unhappily withdrew himself from answering for his activity by suicide, that was Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann. He rang me us and he told me on the telephone -- I really didn't want to speak about that -- as he couldn't contact Baier. I was outside National-Socialism, and I talked against this.
Q. Were the enterprises in Litzmannstadt part of the DWB?
A. No.
Q. Do you know anything about the fact that the WVHA caused any murders in Litzmannstadt, do you know anything about that?
A. No, I think that was what the prosecution said just now. I am not quite sure.
Q. Did you yourself issue any orders?
A. I was not in a position to do so. I have never beaten a single man in all my life, not alone kill anybody.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Robbins will you state your position on this Litzmannstadt Ghetto again so that perhaps Dr. Gawlik and also the Tribunal will get just what your claim is? You stated it a few moments ago, but -
MR. ROBBINS: The documents show a continued connection of the SS-Industries with the Litzmannstadt Ghetto. A later document -- I think that I put in on cross examination of Baier -- shows that the SS-Industries utilized certain of the tools in the Litzmannstadt Ghetto; and further, it is the contention of the prosecution that the issue to be decided by Himmler at the time, that Volk and Baier was sent to Litzmannstadt is to whether wipe out the Ghetto, send the Jews to Auschwitz to be exterminated, or on the other hand to run it on an economic basis, to utilize the Jews in the Ghetto as workers.
THE PRESIDENT: And the latter course was adopted?
MR. ROBBINS: No. The documents show that the Ghetto was not turned into a concentration camp.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. ROBBINS: But the Ghetto was eliminated, that is, the Jews were sent to -
THE PRESIDENT: Lublin, were they not?
MR. ROBBINS: Lublin and Auschwitz.
THE PRESIDENT: And the Ghetto was simply wiped out?
MR. ROBBINS: Whether or not it was reduced to the same level as the Warsaw Ghetto was, I am not sure, but the documents show that a good many of the Jews were sent away for extermination.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it isn't your theory that the Industries in the Ghetto before it was depopulated were operated by the SS?
MR. ROBBINS: I think the witness is in the best position to say definitely whether that is true. The documents show a connection with the SS-Industries, whether or not they were actually directed and supervised by them, I am not sure.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that, at least, clarifies the issue somewhat. Thank you.
We will take the recess at this time, Dr. Gawlik.
(A recess was taken).
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Witness, now I show you photostatic copy of letter dated 14 February 1944, which is Document NO-519, Exhibit No. 490 in Document Book 19, page 44 of the German and page 59 of the English Document Books. Did you gain knowledge of the contents of this letter?
A. I did not gain any knowledge of the contents of this letter.
Q. I want to draw your attention now to the fact that according to the "re" in this letter, a copy was sent to SS-Oberfuehrer Baier and Hauptsturmfuehrer Volk. What do you have to say about that?
A. That is correct. However, I did not receive that copy. This can be seen particularly from the photostatic copy, which is only signed by Herr Baier. Herr Baier had this letter filed without passing it on to me, or without even informing me of the contents of the letter. Every letter which was submitted to me, and of which I gained knowledge, I always signed with my initials "DRV". This will be shown on all documents here. Therefore, I did not gain any knowledge of this letter. Apart from that, it is stated there, copy to Oberfuehrer Baier and Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Volk. It does not say there, copies. Therefore, only one copy. If Baier signed there, I should have also initialed, but Baier did not inform me of the letter.
Q. I show you a photostatic copy dated 16 February 1944 with the following remark contained on the letter, namely, copy of letter to Oberfuehrer Baier and Volk. Did you receive a copy?
A. No.
Q. Can you tell me why?
A. If I had received the letter, and a copy, I provably would have signed that letter also with my initials "DRV", but Herr Baier had this letter filed to and did not show it to me.
Q. Does that apply to any other letter which was introduced by the Prosecution as Document NO-519?
A. Yes, I did not see a single letter from this entire group of letters. I never did initial a single letter. You can not find my initials. All letters were filed by Herr Baier without his informing me in advance.
Q. Would you please inform me about the letter dated 24 January 1944, in Document NO 519, which is on page 50 of the German, and page 41 of the English. Did you receive copies of this letter?
A. No. In the last paragraph of this letter it is stated that I sent a copy to Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, of this report, and at the same time Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl sent a "copy to Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Volk with your approval." This letter also is not initialed by me, but Herr Baier sent it directly to the files. Herr Baier did not inform me of this preliminary report either.
Q. After the Prosecution's statements concerning the Ghetto Litzmannstadt, I have a few more questions concerning that. If I understood the Prosecution correctly, it was first alleged that there was a connection between the Enterprise in Litzmannstadt Ghetto and the WVHA. Therefore, I would like to ask you, witness, are there any connections between the WVHA and the factories of the Ghetto Litzmannstadt? Particularly with the DWB, or Staff-W, or in your activity as a personal referent of Herr Pohl?
A. No, I can not tell you that with certainty. I never did hear anything further about it. After I had been in Litzmannstadt, and Herr Pohl had assured me there will be no concentration camp, I gained no further knowledge from the entire matter.
Q Will you please explain to the Tribunal who was in charge of the enterprises in the Ghetto Litzmannstadt, and what kind of enterprises were those?
A. The Litzmannstadt factories were part of the Party Org. of the NSDAP. Leader of the Gaul was Gauleiter Greiser. A certain business nan from Brimen was commercially in charge. His name was Bibo, and he is also mentioned I believe in the document in connection with the report which was contained in Document 519, Document Book XIX, page 60 of the German Document Book. It is stated therein that there was a man in charge of the Ghetto Administration by the name of Bibo, a business man from Bremen, and he was the man in charge of the Gau-Ghetto. Approximately eight or ten days ago I read in a paper that this man by the name of Bibo had been sentenced to death by a Polish Tribunal, and had been hanged. I read that in a paper. This Ghetto was like a ghetto, and it had nothing to do with the WVHA.
Q. Is it correct to say that then the enterprises in the Ghetto Litzmannstadt were not SS enterprises, but rather enterprises of a Gau?
A. Yes, they were enterprises of the Gau. The WVHA had nothing to do with those enterprises. So far as that goes, I would like to add something in reference to a remark which I made concerning Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann. It is a letter in Document 519, Document Book XIX, page 48, of which I have no knowledge. On the basis of this letter Eichmann called me up at the at the time, and wanted to talk to Pohl first and then to Baier. I knew from the documents here that Herr Pohl had written to Kaltenbrunner, and I shall quote: "As you can see from this copy enclosed, Herr Reichfuehrer-SS had reached an agreement with Gauleiter Greiser in reference to the Litzmannstadt Ghetto which frees me, i.e. Pohl of any other further competence in this matter. On the basis of this letter, which I did not know of, that Eichmann called me up, and made that remark to me, which remark I rejected before the Tribunal before.
Q. If I understood the Prosecution correctly, it is their contention that you somehow participated more actively along that line, namely, the transfer of Jews to Auschwitz, and to destroy the Ghetto. I would like to ask you, Witness, during the negotiations when you were present, did you ever hear mentioned even one word about the transportation of Jews to Auschwitz?
THE PRESIDENT: Please speak slowly. Wait one moment.
THE WITNESS: In my presence no single word was mentioned about the Jews. If it had been mentioned during my presence, I am sure I would have told Herr Pohl about it. Today I have to state with regret that Herr Pohl although he knew since 1943 that Jews were being gassed, after all, he did hear the Posen speech, pulled me into such a disagreeable thing. Not one single word was said about it in my presence.
Q. Do you recall at those conferences where you were present was, at any time, that anything was said about the Litzmannstadt Ghett's being destroyed?
A. No, not one single word was said about that. That would have been the greatest nonsense. After all, the Ghetto Litzmannstadt was right inside Lodz and part of the city would have been destroyed along with the Ghetto. The city was crowded anyway. Not one single word was said in that connection. As far as that goes, in Document NO. 519, in Document Book 19, page 44, of which I stated before again and again I had no knowledge, it is implicitly stated under C, Herr Greiser is writing to Herr Pohl, that the reduction will be carried out by the special detail of the Hauptsturmfuehrer Bodmann which had been already active before in the Gau. I only heard about this letter now. There was no Herr Bodmann in the WVHA at any time and this man Bodmann is the one who probably carried out the reduction of Jews or extermination.
Q. Did you, at any time up to this date, hear anything about the fact that the Ghetto Litzmannstadt was to be destroyed and the Jews were to be transported to Auschwitz?
A. No, I don't know. I never did hear a word about it.
As far as the tools were concerned, Mr. Defense Counsel, you could also ask me a few questions, you know.
Q. What do you know about any tools which were sent to the Ghetto Litzmannstadt from the SS enterprises?
A. In the cross examination, Herr Baier was shown a letter from the Osti Industry. According to my knowledge, I was not informed about this letter nor did I see it. It is stated in the letter that, from Lublin, tools were being sent to Litzmannstadt by the WVHA. But the WVHA had nothing to do with it.
Q. Doesn't the fact that tools for enterprises were being sent to a ghetto show that there was no intention to destroy the ghetto which statement was made by the prosecution? Namely, the alleged statement that the ghetto was to be destroyed? Isn't that in contrast?
A. Logically, this should be assumed, for, after all, you do not send tools into a ghetto in order to destroy the ghetto at a later date, but rather to have the people work there.
Q. Witness, I shall now discuss the Reinhardt Action. When did you first, during your activity, hear anything about this affair Reinhardt?
A. It was in the summer of 1943.
Q. Take a look at the letter which is dated 6 August 1943, Document NO. 1039, Exhibit 384, contained in Document Book 14, on page 25 of the German and 31 of the English document book. Could you realize and recognize from this letter what the Reinhardt Fund was?
A. This is the letter sent by Dr. Hohberg concerning the uncompleted work of Staff W and under 17 there is the Reinhardt Fund. In this letter I can see that Reinhardt had given a credit to the DWB. Where the money came from, I don 't know.
Q. What did you think the Reinhardt Fund was?
A. The Reinhardt Fund I understood or thought to understand that the state secretary Reinhardt from the Reich Finance Ministry, who was an exponent of the Part and who was a friend of Schwerin von Krusiqk, who was Reich Finance Minister, had placed those funds at the disposal of the DWB. Reinhardt was also known to me from his work and his activity during peacetime for the very simple reason that he introduced in Germany communal administration in the big Reinhardt Reform which was the real taxation reform. He also established the Reinhardt Interest Bonuses. He compiled and wrote several books about taxation laws. Apart from that, all new taxes and finance reforms were actually taken care of by Reinhardt according to both the press and the propaganda. Furthermore, Reinhardt was written with "dt" at the end in this letter and as far as I know today Reinhard is spelled with a "d" at the end rather than a "dt". Apart from that, Herr Pohl once called me to his office, in Frank's presence, and told me that the Reich Finance Ministry wanted to give a credit to the DWB, if this would be possible.
All I could understand from this was that this was actually a fund which was placed at the disposal of the DWB by the second highest official in the Reich Finance Ministry.
BY JUDGE MUSMANNO:
Q. May I ask a question, please?
Is it customary for the name of the Minister to be attached to a purely governmental function?
A. I'm afraid the translation didn't quite get through, Your Honor.
Q. I'll put the question very specifically. The Reinhardt of whom you speak was Assistant Minister of the Treasury? Is that what I understand? Ministry of Finance, yes?
A. Yes, that's right. Graf Schwerin von Krossigk was the Minister. The State Secretary was Reinhardt. Schwerin von Krossigk was the professional man and was Reich Minister even prior to 1933, and state secretary Reinhardt was SA Obergruppenfuehrer.
Q. Anything coming out of the Ministry of Finance wouldn't bear the name of the Minister as such, would it, being a purely governmental operation?
A. Yes, but as I have stated before, the real taxation reform was also called the Reinhardt real tax reform. I have to understand from that if this fund is called "the Reinhardt Fund" that the Reich Finance Ministry placed certain monies at the disposal of the DWB.
Q. I can understand how, in the newspapers, the name could be attached to the operation, but, within the government itself, if it is a governmental action, I cannot understand why the name Reinhardt would be used.
A. Yes, Mr. Federal Judge, such names in particular were chosen. You see, series of actions received the names of leading personalities. The reason why this was done was that the Fuehrer principle was to be shown more clearly by doing that.
In Germany, even in governmental circles, one never spoke of a cabinet or a government, one always spoke of the man.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Witness, perhaps you can answer the following question.
Would you please explain to the Tribunal, witness, the personality of the Finance Minister Schwerin Krossigk and the personality of Reinhardt. Tell us which of the two was the most important person and why it was not at all difficult to understand that fund wasn't called according to the name Schwerin von Krossigk but rather according to the State Secretary? what part did von Krossigk play in social life and what was the role of Mr. Reinhardt in public life?
A. Mr. Defense Counsel, if I, as a rather young person, have to give you a judgment or my opinion on these two personalities I have to say that von Krossigk was the most important one of the two because he was a sensible, professionally very skilled man who, step by step, actually worked his way up to the position of Minister. Even in the democratic regime, Herr Reinhardt, up to 1933, was nothing but a simple teacher in a business school. It was only through the help of the Party that he became a SA-Gruppenfuehrer and SA Obergruppenfuehrer. It was he then who was placed a bit higher as an exponent of the Party, and all these things which von Krossigk had done to the German Reich while working hard, the financing, etc, all this, during the war, was said to have been done by Reinhardt. You could read in the paper: "Herr Reinhardt, and Reinhardt again." Reinhardt held speeches at every conference. The people in the Finance Ministry knew that the real man behind it all was von Krossigk. Others knew that, but we all knew that Reinhardt would be the one credited with everything. That was the reason that I didn't have a single doubt that Reinhardt was the man who had given the fund.
Q. Witness, can you tell the Tribunal something - give us examples where the State Secretary, towards the outside, showed himself much more than the Minister himself?
I am think of the Justice Ministry, for instance.
A. Yes, the Justice Ministry in 1933. The Prussian Justice Ministry, I mean. There was not a single Prussian Ministry up to then where .....
INTERPRETER: (Interrupting): I can't do it. It's just impossible, Your Honor, if he doesn't slow down.
THE PRESIDENT: You must talk more slowly and you must stop between the question and the answer or what you're saying is of no help to you. It isn't properly recorded unless you'll help by slowing down and stopping between the question and answer. There's no use in talking unless we can read it afterwards.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Witness, as to another relationship between the Minister and the State Secretary besides the Justice Ministry - can you tell us something about it?
A. Yes, in the Reich Justice Ministry, Guertner, was the minister; Schlegelberger was one of the greatest German lawyers.
Q. Which one of the State secretaries actually played the real important part? Was it Schlegelberger, or was it the State Secretary?
A. There was a second State Secretary there also Freisler. Freisler was the one who played the most important part. Everywhere you could read the name of Freisler. Schlegelberger's name, for instance-- who was the great commentator--was never mentioned. By the way, Freisler was also the greatest enemy of the young lawyers.
Q. In the Finance Ministry, prior to 1933 were not there also cases where, for instance, certain reforms were not called according to the minister but rather according to the state secretary?
A. Well-
Q. How was it with Popitz?
A. Popitz was the State Secretary in the Reich Finance Ministry. He was the one who issued the Popitzsche Osthilfe Gesetzgebung. That was a special code according to which all the farmers in eastern Prussia and in Pommerania were helped, because, otherwise, they would have become bankrupt. And this Osthilfe Gesetzgebung was also called in honor of Popitz.
Q. I shall go on, witness, and show you again Document NO-1039, Exhibit 384, it is contained in Document Book 14, page 25 of the German and 31 of the English Document book. This is the file note of Dr. Hohberg concerning the incompleted works, and particularly conclusion of the credit contract with the Reich. Did you participate in that credit contract?
A. No, I did not participate in concluding this contract in any way.
Q. Did you know anything about the auditing report which was done by Vogt?
A. No, I had nothing to do with the Reinhardt matters and things in connection with that.
Q. Herr Pohl, in his examination as a witness, testified that upon Himmler's orders the WVHA, as of the first of January, 1944, was in charge of the handling of the Reinhardt Action. Did you have anything to do with that task, witness?
A. Amtsgruppe W had nothing to do with that. I was only active within the sphere of "W".
Q. Who was it that was competent for that, witness?
A. As I found out here in this trial, Amtsgruppe A was competent for those things.
Q. Did the DWB or Staff W contribute in this matter in any way?
A. No, I know nothing about it; nor can I actually think that the DWB or Staff "W" had anything to do with the handling of the Reinhardt Action.
Q. Witness, I shall now show you Document NO-3766, Exhibit 603. Do you have the document, witness? Take a quick look at the document, and give it back to me because I have to ask you a few questions in connection with this document. Those are a few additional documents; its number is 603, and those were shown Herr Baier during the crossexamination.
Did you find it, Your Honor. It is Exhibit 603.
To which company did those enterprises Lublin and Limburg belong? Could you tell me? They are contained in this document.
A. They were part of the Deutsche Ausruestungswerke G.m.b.H, Office W-4, the German Equipment Enterprises.
Q. Did you ever work in Office W-4?
A. Never.
Q. Could you issue orders to the business manager of Office W-4 as a--procurist of the DWB?
THE PRESIDENT: Who signed this letter?
DR. GAWLIK: (Counsel for defendant Volk) Who signed this document? Could you tell me, witness?
WITNESS: Dr. Horn; but that is not the Dr. Horn who used to work with Osti.
THE PRESIDENT: That is a different Dr. Horn?
WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: He was with W-4?
WITNESS: Yes, that is correct, Your Honor.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Were you the superior of the Chief of Office W-4, or business manager of the DAW?
A. No.
THE PRESIDENT: This witness's name is not on this letter.
DR. GAWLIK: Well, Your Honor--but I believe that the Prosecution stated that Dr. Volk had such a superior position as a personal referent that he could issue orders to all the chiefs of offices. That is the reason why I have to refute that statement. If the Prosecution can state that this document will not be used against Dr. Volk, I think it is something entirely different.
THE PRESIDENT: How could it be used against him? He didn't write it; he didn't receive it; his name isn't mentioned in it; and he didn't get a copy.
DR. GAWLIK: Well, if that is the Tribunal's opinion-
THE PRESIDENT: Why don't you show him a copy of the London Times, and ask him if he had anything to do with that?
DR. GAWLIK: I didn't quite get that, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: It is just as well, probably. All right, go ahead, doctor.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Witness, I shall now speak about Document NO-4075 which is Exhibit No. 590, Your Honor.
Did you receive that letter, witness?
A. I am afraid I can't recall having received it, but I must assume I did.