THE PRESIDENT: Well, Sievers also said that one-hundred suitable prisoners were transferred to Natzweiler. Were they?
A I don't know, Mr. President, whether they were transferred, or not.
Q Who had charge of the transferring of labor from one camp to another?
A I don't know how these typhus vaccine experiments at Natzweiler were conducted. The rule was always that people concerned who were interested saw and talked to Himmler. He then approved or disapproved the experiment, and then either the Inspectorate, Amtsgruppe-D, and all camps themselves where the experiments were to take place, were informed of Himmler's order, and of the fact that prisoners were to be transferred. That was the regular procedure. In this case, of course, where prisoners had to be transferred repeatedly, the man concerned turned to Lolling, then he came to see me, and I would send him back to Lolling's office or to Gluecks. Therefore, one can not say that a clear line of procedure was always adhered to. Standard orders of procedure were not always observed within the organization of the SS-agencies. Sometimes Sievers approached Brandt, as I can see from this document.
Q Well, you had charge of the labor allocation, didn't you? Can we agree on that?
A Yes.
Q Could one-hundred prisoners be transferred to Natzweiler and you not know anything about it?
A The transfer of inmates for the purpose of medical experiments was not part of labor allocation, because otherwise other labor allocations would have to be approved by Himmler personally, which was not the case. The transfer of inmates for medical experiments had to be approved by Himmler personally.
Q You could lose one-hundred inmates and not know it?
A Mr. President, if you had to deal with six or seven hundred thousand prisoners - a number which fluctuated constantly, and if I only saw the report once per month, I could not always see where one-hundred prisoners might be located. Five-thousand or ten-thousand might be lost by fatalities; twenty-thousand might be new arrivals and were distributed to 600 places of work, and I was unable to see where one-hundred prisoners would go, if they went to Natzweiler, or not, in the middle of the month. This always was the task of the lower agencies; in my Berlin Office, I did not deal with any condition concerning 100 prisoners. It would not reach me, that sort of thing. All I did
Q When your monthly report came in, and you were "shy" one-hundred prisoners, it would not mean anything then?
A I have explained, Mr. President, that these monthly surveys which go to an estimate say of six-hundred or seven-hundred thousand men, shown in twenty or thirty different columns, made it quite impossible for me to see where one-hundred inmates would be missing somewhere, because these small figures such as one-hundred inmates would not be contained therein.
Q In other words, this was just such a wholesale business, that the disappearance of one-hundred human beings was not even noticed?
A They were such large figures that I could not follow these fluctuations in detail. I was quite unable to do that.
Q How many men would have to disappear before you would notice it?
A I am unable to answer that question in this form. I can not say as much as twenty thousand or ten thousand, because the point is that I did not learn of a constant figure all the time.
I did not have a plan. I would have six-hundred thousand men at my disposal, and if there were five thousand missing for the month, they must either had died, or been released. That is quite impossible. It was not only the occasion of losing inmates, but that a certain number would arrive, and the new arrivals would not be reported to me, or discussed. That inmates from the RSHA, or the Gestapo, would be delivered at the gates of the concentration camp without my being informed previously. Not even the camp commandant was informed of the figures on the transport. That was one of the reasons that Amt-D was created.
Q Then any number of men and women up into the thousands could simply disappear, and nobody in your department would know it?
A The Inspectorate - the Inspector in the Inspectorate Office, D-II would know it.
Q But that was not your department, you say, the Inspectorate? That was independent?
A The Inspectorate of the concentration camps, as we know, became Office D-II, since May 1942 and belonged to the WVHA.
Q That is right.
A I only emphasize, Mr. President, that it was not under me in all the affairs. It was not. This morning I gave the example of the junction and the two rails. I quoted from the book of the inmate which also speak of two departments, A and B; to say the least, two important agencies were working on this which influenced all these things.
Q I got the impression that Amt-D, the Inspectorate, did anything that was wrong. That was not under you?
A Oh, no, Mr. President. The Office D-II received from all camps a monthly report, and when received each monthly report would be put together for a monthly survey for my benefit, which was usual with all the governmental agencies.
I could not receive reports from fifteen-hundred camps, a single report, as I could not read all these reports, that would take me an entire working day. From these single reports the office of D-II compiled the monthly survey and submitted it to me, and from this monthly report one could only see the big figure, from which you could not see small movements from one camp to another, the transfer of one-hundred, or two or five-hundred, or one-thousand men from Dachau to Natzweiler, for instance. I might say, for instance, for medical experiments three-hundred or fourhundred or five-hundred men, that would be a small figure, and then in that particular period of the month the figure would change, and I could not see from this big survey that change.
Q Well, in this same letter from Sievers he asked for twohundred more men; on the second page. It is on the first page of the original: "Should there be urgent reason twohundred experimental persons can not be transferred to Natzweiler, then these experiments could be carried out in another concentration camp." Do you know whether he ever got the extra two-hundred, or not?
A I am not able to say that today, Mr. President, but I am convinced that if I had seen the letter I would not let it pass without a remark or a note. Above all the demand for two-hundred able-bodied prisoners for medical experiments would not have passed me without my protest, because I disapproved in the case of Schilling, for instance, the demand for prisoners. I tried to stop that by intervening with Himmler, and I would not have let this pass.
Q Well, either Gluecks or Maurer would know about this?
A They were not in a position to do that. They, too, could not do that without first consulting Himmler.
Q They would know whether these prisoners were transferred or not, wouldn't they? Gluecks or Maurer?
A Yes, they would be told, of course.
Q Where is Gluecks?
A Gluecks is dead.
Q Where is Maurer?
A He is here in Nurnberg.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q Witness, I shall now turn to the mustard-gas experiments. The Prosecution has presented another affidavit from Rudolf Brandt. This is Document NO-372, Document Book 9, page 40, in paragraph 4 of the document which says that "Clothes had been detailed by WVHA for this purpose." I should like to ask you if you have any knowledge of the mustard-gas experiments in Natzweiler or Mauthausen? Did you get a copy of the Fuehrer's order, such as is alleged in paragraph 5 of Brandt's affidavit?
A In my own affidavit, which I submitted here, I described the experiments which I remember from that period, I think there were six or seven. This did not include the mustardgas experiments. I was asked about them at the time, and I confused them with Lost experiments, not can I recall about this date that I knew anything of this mustard-gas experiment. I am not quite sure, but I do not believe so. Likewise, if I had received an order from the Fuehrer, such as is mentioned in paragraph 5, surely I would have remembered that, because I got so few orders of that type, and they concerned only such important matters, that I would not have lost it in my memory altogether. I think Brandt ought to refresh his memory a little here.
Q. I shall now turn to NO-935 Exhibit 232. It is a letter from Sievers to SS-Brigadefuehrer Gluecks. I would like to ask you, How does the fact which is contained in this letter tally with the statements made by Rudolf Brandt in his affidavit? Did Gluecks tell you about the contents of the letter of 27 August 1943?
A. It is difficult for me after five or more years to answer and identify each document with Yes or No, because in my activity within the Reich Leadership SS I dealt with tons of papers. It is interesting to see in this document that Sievers had talked to Lolling on one occasion, and on another he addressed himself to Gluecks, and on yet another occasion he asserts that he had seen me, which is quite possible. That is the best illustration of what I said before, namely, how irregularly the service worked in the absence of a clear channel of command so that one would be able to say, "This is the man for this matter, and he must have received this document." Sievers went and saw Gluecks. I do not know whether Gluecks informed me of the contents of this letter, which is not so important after all. It is quite possible.
Q. What you said just now would probably apply also to Document NO 978, which is Prosecution Exhibit 233, and also to Document NO-092, which is Exhibit 235; is that correct?
A. Yes, that applies as well.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Dr. Seidl, when you have the English page number before your eyes, would you kindly indicate it to us, so that we can find it a little more quickly?
DR. SEIDL: Yes, certainly, Your Honor. I must confess, however, that for the remaining questions concerning this document book I do not have the English pages because it was not possible to obtain an English copy, but in the following document books, I shall give the English page numbers.
A. As far as Exhibit 233 is concerned, I should like to point out that Sievers also talked to the Reichsfuehrer-SS. It says here in the letter to Brigadefuehrer Gluecks, "On the basis of my report, as proposed by the Reichsfuehrer SS, there is a good possibility for carrying out our military scientific work in the concentration camp Natzweiler", and so forth.
Yet another agency had been included.
Q. I shall now turn to Document NO-005, which is Prosecution Exhibit 237. It concerns experiments with N-Substance. It is a letter from the Reich-Physician Grawitz to Himmler of 29 November 1944. I should like to ask you, witness, did SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Gluecks report to you on the setting aside of 15 inmates who were sentenced to death? Were these experiments carried out at all, and when did you hear for the first time of this matter.
A. That was rather late in November 1944. At that time nothing became known to me of these things. I am almost certain that I can say that, and Gluecks, after having been charged with the preliminary work for these experiments, together with Gebhardt and Nebe, did not tell me every time, "I set five prisoners aside". That was an affair with which I as Ministerial Director, need not deal with at all. I can say, therefore, that I heard nothing about this at all.
Q. I shall now turn to the so-called sterilization experiments. The Prosecution in its presentation of evidence has submitted another affidavit of Rudolf Brandt, Document NO-440, Exhibit 238, Document Book 9, Page 54 of the German text, page 51 of the English version. What do you know about these experiments, witness, as far as they were connected with the so-called Caladium Seguinum, and what can you say about paragraph five of Brandt's affidavit?
A. Of these experiments on sterilization, I said in my affidavit what I knew, and I stand by that. I see under paragraph five of the affidavit that Brandt says,"As a result of Pokorny's suggestion, experiments were conducted on concentration camp inmates". This business which really concerns only Dr. Koch and Madaus of Rathebeul, I only followed up to the point when the firm of Madaus was given a hothouse in order to cultivate the necessary plant, and I was to give assistance in this enterprise, that is to say, up to a point when the hothouse was not even ready yet, in order to cultivate this caladium seguinum from which the drug was to be gained, so I do not know to this day whether the cultivation and the production of this drug ever succeeded or whether there were any experiments at all, I do not know that, because after that one conference with Dr. Koch in Rathebeul, I never saw any of the people concerned again, and I didn't talk to them again.
Therefore, what Brandt says here is in my opinion a complete mistake. I now come to document NO-036.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q. How far did you go in an effort to cultivate the drug mentioned in paragraph five of Brandt's affidavit for the purpose of mass sterilization of concentration camp inmates.
A. I said just now that my activity ceased when the hothouse was to be built. That was the purpose for which I was consulted.
Q. Just a minute. Did you build the hothouse for that purpose, or have it built?
A. The firm of Madaus asked us to assist them in building a hothouse. That was not easy at the time because --
Q. You need not go into that. I just asked you a simple question, and you can answer it. I asked you, Did you build a hothouse for that purpose or have it built? You can answer that with Yes or No.
A. We did not build it. We helped the firm Madaus in obtaining the necessary material.
Q. You had it built then?
A. It was to be built in Rathebeul, and I don't know whether it was built or not. All we did was to help them get the material.
Q. Did you help them get the material then? That is what I want to know -- what you did about it.
A. Yes. Permission to obtain the materials through the Ministry, not the material itself.
Q. That is all.
DR. SEIDL: In this connection, may I remark, quite apart from the interrogation of this defendant, that in Case No. 1 it became clear from the evidence that it was not possible to cultivate this Caladium Seguinum, and therefore no experiments took place.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. I now turn to Document NO-036, which is Exhibit 240, page 55 in Your Honor's book. This is a letter from Himmler to you of 10 March 1944, and I would like to ask you what you did in consequence of this letter and what were the results of the measures you took? When you answer this question, please remember the contents of Prosecution Exhibits 241 through 249.
A. These documents are all part of the complex which is under review now. The sterilization through Caladium Seguinum, was worked on actively by Madaus and also I believe by Dr. Pokorny. They approached us from two different sides, and it led to the results which we discussed just now. This is simply an exchange of correspondence, but nothing new came from them.
Q. The following documents refer to the sterilization experiments according to the method of Professor Glauberg. In connection with Document NO 211, Prosecution Exhibit 250, which is a letter from Glauberg to Himmler of 30 May 1942, I would like to ask you what you heard of these experiments according to the Glauberg method, and what were your connections with it?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A I saw Clauberg during a stay in Auschwitz, we had dinner together, and I heard that he was busy on sterilization experiments in Auschwitz. At that time he invited me to look at the experiments, which I refused to do. Therefore, I saw nothing of his Auschwitz experiments or anywhere else--I do not know whether he carried out experiments anywhere else--and hence I am unable to say anything about it.
MR. ROBBINS: Before we get completely away from the experiments concerning caladium, I don't want to let Dr. Seidl's statement go unchallenged to the effect that experiments were not carried out according to the evidence in the medical case. I think the evidence there simply shows that it was not possible to grow the plant on a large scale and it was finally, in the end, given up. I don't think it was established that no experiments were carried out.
DR. SEIDL: I believe that is what I said; perhaps the translation was wrong. I said that it was not possible, as to the Caladium Seguinum, to cultivate that plant in order to make experiments, and that failure led to the result that no experiments on human beings were carried out.
THE PRESIDENT: That isn't what Mr. Robbins said.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: No, that is not the same.
MR. ROBBINS: I think the facts are shown by the defendants, that experiments were carried out and sterilizations were made by use of the plant; but it was found, through the experiments, that largescale sterilization could not be accomplished because the plant could not be grown on a large scale.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: I think that the integrity of the translator was established.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q I shall now turn to Exhibits 251 and 253. These are two memos concerning a conference between Himmler, SS-Brigadefuehrer Gebhardt, SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks, and SS-Brigadefuehrer professor Clauberg. These file memoranda concern different days, but it must be as Court No. II, Case No. 4.sumed, as a result of the evidence in Tribunal I in the medical case, that these two file memoranda concern one and the same conference.
I would like to ask you, witness: Did Himmler or Gluecks tell you about the contents of this conference?
A No.
Q I shall now turn to document NO-213, which is Prosecution Exhibit 252. It is a letter from Rudolf Brandt to Professor Glauberg of 10 July 1942. My question is: Did Glauberg come to see you and did you visit the Ravensbrueck camp with him, which one might assume on the basis of this letter?
A I cannot recall that Glauberg came to see me five years ago. I do not believe so. Above all, I should remember a trip to Ravensbrueck, but I was never there, nor do I see from the letter why I should have gone there with him. I cannot recall this affair at all.
Q The next two documents are concerned with sterilization experiments, or castration with X-rays. They are Exhibit 256. It is a report by Brack, from the Fuehrer Chancellery, concerning X-ray castration. This report was passed on to Himmler on 28 March 1941, with an accompanying letter from Brack. It is document NO-203.
My question is: Did you see Brack's report? Did it become known to you?
A No, I never saw Brack's report.
Q Three months later Victor Brack wrote once again to Himmler on this same problem, on 23 June 1942. This is Exhibit 257, document NO-205, at page 84 of the English document book. In that letter Brack tells Himmler that at the order of Reichsleiter Bouhler he gave to Brigadefuehrer Globocnik a large number of his own men in order to carry out his special assignment.
I would like to ask you: Did Himmler or Globocnik tell you anything about this business, and when were you told?
A Neither Himmler nor Globocnik told me anything of this Group Brack.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q Did you know anything about the sterilization or castration program from any source at the time it was going on?
A No, I never heard anything about that.
Q You never heard anything about it?
A No, I never heard anything about it.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: What is the next book you are going to use, Dr. Seidl?
DR. SEIDL: I am now turning to some questions which deal with the so-called euthanasia program, and the documents concerned are contained in document book X.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q Witness, in presenting their case on the so-called euthanasia program, the Prosecution submitted documents which show that that program was carried out in concentration camps under the designation 14 F 13. As Exhibit 281, the Prosecution submitted Hitler's decree of 1 September 1939, in which Reichsleiter Bouhler and Dr. Ned Brandt are charged with extending the competence of certain doctors to be named, to the effect that people who are incurably ill, according to human estimates, can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death. This is Document 630-PS, which is Prosecution Exhibit 281.
Witness, when did you hear the wording and the contents of this Hitler-decree for the first time?
A I saw this decree here in Nurnberg as a document for the first time.
Q When did you hear that in the war, in insane asylums and concentration camps, certain people were being accorded a mercy death on the basis of this Hitler-decree?
A I cannot recall that I received at any time an official or any other informational report or communication about the execution of a euthanasia program. I came across the title of "euthanasia program" Court No. II, Case No. 4.for the first time here in Nurnberg; I do not know when this program was begun, nor how it was carried out.
Even after 1942, when the Inspectorate was incorporated into the WVHA, I never heard anything about it or noticed that program was still going on in the concentration camps.
Q Therefore you cannot say anything about the statements made by Victor Brack in his affidavit, which is Prosecution Exhibit 282, Document NO-426, on page 3 of the English document book, document book X?
A No; I cannot say anything about that from my own knowledge.
Q In Exhibit 283 the Prosecution has submitted several documents, which are included in document No. 1151-PS. This is on page 10 of the English document book. In one of these documents the inspector of concentration camps tells the commandant of concentration camps, on 12 December 1941, that a medical commission will soon visit them. I am asking you, did you hear anything about the contents of the letter at that time or later on?
A No.
Q And how do you explain the designation 14 F 13?
A I did not hear anything of this letter to the commandants of December 1941. As to how the designation 14 F 13 came about I tried to puzzle that out here in Nuernberg; I had no knowledge of it before, nor do I think I ever came across the expression. I assume that is simply a file note, because I have seen from the files that "14" is the basic figure for the files of the concentration camps, which is all I can say about this matter.
Q As Exhibit 288, the Prosecution has submitted an extract of the testimony of Dr. Fritz Mennecke before Military Tribunal No. I, which is document NO-2635, document book X, page 62 of the English book. I would like to ask you: Can you tell us something about the description which Mennecke gives, from your own observations and your own knowledge?
Q. Mennecke himself is unknown to me even today. I never heard his name before. From this transcript I see that apparently he was a member of a Doctors' Commission which travelled from camp to camp in order to carry out the Euthanasia program, but I cannot say anything from my won knowledge.
Q. On page 95 of the German text it says: Quote "In one of your letters to your wife you spoke of the fact that you did not meet the defendant Brack because he and some of the others who were members of the organization T-4 had gone to the East in order to prepare the organization which was to rescue German wounded from ice and snow. End of quotation. I would like to ask you, witness, do you know what T-4 stands for?
A. No, that is quite unknown to me.
Q. You never heard of the fact that this is a sort of code for Bouhler's office in Tiergartenstrasse, 4, in Berlin?
A. No.
Q. Do you know anything of the statements made by the witness Dr. Morgen, which he made in connection with Tiergartenstrasse, 4, before the IMT?
A. No, that also is not known to me.
Q. I shall now turn to Document NO-429, page 122 in the English Document Book X. It is an affidavit by Waldemar Hoven. You have read this affidavit, and I would like to ask you: As Chief of the WVHA, were you informed of the matters described in this affidavit, and in how far are you in a position, on the basis of your own knowledge, to comment on statements made by Dr. Hoven?
A. It was not known to me that in Buchenwald since 1941 there was an institute for this research work.
Nor do I know who was in charge. My entire knowledge comes from this document.
Q. Then I shall turn to Document NO-2436, on page 127 of the English Document Book X. This was Exhibit 292, and represents excerpts of the testimony made by the witness Ferdinand Roemhild before Military Tribunal One, Case One, against Karl Brandt and others... In your capacity as Chief of the WVHA, did you know anything about the measures described by the witness?
A. No, nothing became known to me.
Q. As Exhibit 295 the Prosecution has submitted a letter from SS-Brigadefuehrer Gluecks to the commanders of various concentration camps of 17 April 1943, which also refers to the Action 14 F 13. This is Document NO-1007, page 141 of the English Document Book X. In that letter it says the following, literally and I quote:
"The Reichsfuehrer-SS and Chief of the German Police upon demonstration has decreed that in the future only insane prisoners can be selected for the Action 14 F 13 by the medical commissions appointed for this purpose." My question is, witness; Did this letter, or the contents of this letter, become known to you?
A. I cannot recall that this matter was reported to me. I assume with certainty that this decision by Himmler was communicated either directly to Gluecks or to the RSHA. It must have gone to Gluecks. The RSHA had nothing to do with this. I would have noticed that at the time and I would have put questions about the process. I do not believe that it was submitted to me.
Q. Then I shall finally turn to Document NO-2333, which is an affidavit of Dr. Schiedlausky. It is on page 142 of the English Document Book, 131 of the German Book.
I would like to ask you in this connection.....do you recall that at the beginning of June 1941 you visited Mathausen, together with Himmler? Were you present when Himmler visited the hospital? Did you hear the remark made by Himmler here, and did you discuss the Euthanasia action, as far as the hospital was concerned, with Lolling?
A. I went to Mathausen several times with Himmler. Whether I did this in 1941, or not, I do not know. It is possible. I can't recall at all whether about six years ago he visited the hospital at Mathausen and made this remark, because he was always surrounded by a motley crowd and I was not always present when he made visits. I and Lolling or I and Gluecks, never discussed anything pertaining to Euthanasia because the whole process was not known to me. I did not know that after 1943 it was still going on in camps in a somewhat weaker form. It always was done on the medical channel of command. Lolling never asked me any questions about this.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: You say you do not remember whether you were present on this occasion or not. Would not the remark made by Himmler, and you been present, clung to your memory -- when you consider the spectacular brutality of it. Wouldn't persons brought before him, in your presence, according to the affidavit - and Himmler said, "I want this man to be dead by this evening" ... certainly you would remember if you heard a remark of that character or not.
A. I believe so, definitely, had I heard that remark.
Q. But you say you don't remember whether you were there or not - thereby including the possibility that you could have been there?
A. I cannot recall that I and Himmler were there in 1941.
I said before that I was in Mathausen more frequently on some occasions - I went with Himmler, but I cannot recall that I went through the hospital with him. I don't remember that picture, and I must therefore assume that I was not present when he made that remark.
DR. SEIDL: If the Court please, in connection with Action 14-F-13 in Document Book X I have no further questions to ask, and perhaps this would be a suitable moment, before we begin an entirely new complex, to adjorn.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has no objection.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until 0930 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 0930 21 May 1947)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Oswald Pohl, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 21 May 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Robert M. Toms, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q Witness, before we turn to the question of labor allocation, I wish to put a question to you which is connected with an earlier document, submitted in Document Book 5. This is Document NO-1210 which was Exhibit 146. This is an affidavit by a certain Pauly, and a copy of this affidavit is in your hands. Will you please comment briefly on this affidavit?
A Pauly was the last camp commandant of Neuengamme. In his affidavit he says that approximately between 13 and 15 April 1945 he received an order signed by either Mueller or Hoess from the RSHA to execute the experimental subjects, and he alleges that this order came from me. I have not the slightest knowledge of the whole business. It would not have been part of my tasks; at that time I was already moving away to southern Germany, and the camp was under the orders of the Higher Police and SS Leader at Hamburg.
Q Now I turn to the question of labor allocation, and in this connection I shall put a few questions to you which are contained in Document Book II.
First of all, a general question: Who in the concentration camp was responsible for the labor allocation of the inmates and what was the agency which directed the labor allocation centrally, as far as it concerned inmate labor or in economic enterprises?
AApproximately in the middle of 1942 I ordered the following changes in the allocation of labor. In each camp a labor allocation leader was appointed. He was part of the staff of the camp commandant and was his consultant for the questions of labor allocation, and received his orders from the camp commandant. The camp commandant, in turn, received his orders from Office D-2, in Office Group D, Inspectorate of Concentration Camps, which was under the direction of Standartenfuehrer Maurer.
Q What were the business relations in the questions of camp innate labor between you, yourself, as the chief of WVHA, and the Chief of Amtsgruppe D, or his expert, Standartenfuehrer Maurer?
AApplications from armament enterprises, including the supply of labor, were prepared in Office D-2, and this is how it worked. The enterprises would apply either to the camp commandant directly or to the Office D-2 - it depended on their connections and on their situation. The camp commandant then had to visit the enterprise and discuss with the manager questions of billeting, feeding, and medical welfare of the laborers. In this respect he had to report to the Office D-2; Office D-2 then would discuss these applications with the armament ministry and would receive a certificate confirming the necessity of the particular allocation. The applications having thus been prepared, Gluecks, usually accompanied by Maurer, would see me about once a week, submit the applications to me, and I approved them. Only then would the camp commandant, through Office D-2, receive the order to furnish the inmates.
Q You stated that the enterprises either addressed the camp or the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps. Was it not the case very frequently or was it not even the rule that enterprises would apply to the labor office concerned, the Regional Labor Office, which would then pass on the applications to the Ministry of Labor and that the required number of workers would then reach the Inspectorate?
A That might have happened, yes, and later on there was a regulation in this respect, but it was not the normal procedure nor was it ordered for us to do so in 1942.
Q What other Reich agencies were concerned with regulations concerning labor allocation?
A We only dealt with the Armament Ministry.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you also supply the Luftwaffe?
WITNESS: We also furnished labor to the Luftwaffe, to all Arlament works.
THE PRESIDENT: Including the Luftwaffe?
WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: When Maurer and Gluecks came to see you, did you sign the order allocating labor to the various industries?
WITNESS: The applications were submitted to me - a list of applications of how many inmates would be needed - and I approved them by initialing them.
THE PRESIDENT: And then Maurer and Gluecks carried out your instructions as indicated on the list?
WITNESS: Yes, quite.
Q Some of the concentration camp inmates were not employed in the SS enterprises, but in private industry. I would like to ask you who worked on this up to a point to whom would a manager of a private factory apply when he needed labor?