Q Then you state today that Baier had no supervisory power whatsoever over any industries in Amtsgruppe W?
A He had no supervision over the management.
Q I should like to read you from Baier's affidavit which he had given and which we have put in evidence and which he swore to. He says that he had supervision of the directors of the DWB in their financial and other assignments, as well as generally all questions concerning plant management. Now this was sworn to by the Defendant Baier on the 21st of January of this year. Do you want to tell the court that Baier doesn't know what his own duties were in Amtsgruppe W?
A That is the correct picture inasmuch as through his auditing he came into contact with these questions, but that was not primarily part of this task; as an auditor and an accountant, he had to deal with these questions. That he was aware of them I have no doubt, but I don't think Baier would wish to say that himself that he had to deal with questions of plant management and he would have any influence on them.
Q He doesn't confine his statement merely to auditing in plant management. He says he had general supervision over all questions concerning plant management.
A That is out of the question. After all between Baier and the enterprises there were the managers of the enterprises with whom I had discussions of the questions myself, and then, of course, the supervisors themselves. I cannot see where Baier could come in there.
Q Did you ever discuss questions of plant management of any of the industries with Baier?
A No questions of plant management. I understand by that, questions of auditing procedures, how enterprises might be extended, and so forth. The operational questions I would not discuss with Baier. I would discuss them with the managers.
Q Did you ever discuss with him the use of inmate labor in any of the concentration camp industries?
A That happened hardly at all. I don't think so. I don't know I would discuss the question of labor assignment of inmates with Baier.
Q Did you say you never discussed questions of the use of inmate labor or that you discussed them only infrequently?
A Not very much. The question was probably touched upon when we had to decide on wage scales and the organization. The question of assignment of inmates would be discussed generally, but I cannot recall that I and Baier would discuss questions which would concern the assignment of inmates in certain enterprises, because these were questions which would concern only the managers and the directors, but, of course, questions of labor assignment of inmates would come into his task and thereby touched upon wage scales, expenditures, overheads, and therefore upon his activity too. I, therefore, cannot say that Baier would discuss the assignments of inmates, but it is a different pair of shoes to say that the use of inmates in certain enterprises or the effect of that assignment on wages scales and other matters which were more a matter of a chartered accountant.
Q As a matter of fact, you told Baier, did you not, to compile a list of all of the industries in Amtsgruppe W, which used concentration inmates for the purpose of discussing the question as to how much the inmates should receive, or, rather, how much the industries should pay for the use of inmate labor. You did that, didn't you?
A Yes, we discussed that.
Q You talked about the use of inmate labor when you discussed that, didn't you?
A Yes, certainly of course.
Q There is no doubt in your mind that Baier knew which of the industries used inmate labor?
A That he knew very well.
Q I would like to refer to Exhibit 65 in Book 3, which is a letter from Baier to May, who was Chief of Office W-4 and in this letter dated 19 January 1944 Baier tells May that you have approved the changes and organizations of the DAW resulting from the conversion of the forced labor camps in the District of Lublin, which we discussed yesterday.
For the court's information, this is on page 78 of Document Book 3. It is on page 80 of the German. It is NO-1036. Baier reports that the forced labor camps have been converted into concentration camps in Lublin and that the DAW might establish its headquarters at Cracow. Did you discuss this question with Baier, the conversion of the camps in the East into concentration camps.
A. I'm sorry; may I have the document number again?
Q. 1036. It is on Page 82 of the German, Book III. Do you find it, 1036?
A. Yes, I have it now.
Q. You discussed the conversion of the camps in the East and the concentration camps with Baier, did you not?
A. I don't believe so because what we are concerned with here is not the conversion of the camps but the measures resulting therefrom regarding the establishment of the Central Administration in Cracow. I cannot recall that I and Baier discussed the previous history there; that is to say, the conversion of the forced labor camps in the East, because Baier was not interested in this. It was not part of his tasks.
Q. You told him that it was going to happen, did you not? Just yes or no.
A. Yes.
Q. You told him afterwards that it had happened, did you not?
A. Yes, I told him that, yes. As a result of the change in the East, it was advisable to have a Central Administration so that we need not negotiate concerning various enterprises from Berlin. That was the basic idea of this discussion, which was the consequence of the measures which had previously been taken in which Baier, however, had not taken part.
MR. ROBBINS: I shall point out to the court later the close connection between this document and the extermination of the Jews in Action Reinhardt.
Q. For the moment I would like merely to ask the witness, Baier went ahead and arranged for SS industries to be established in these camps, did he not?
A. No, Baier had nothing to do with that because after all they existed when he came. Baier joined us only in August 1943; and after that date no new SS industries were instituted in camps. They were all in existence already.
Q. The DAW didn't have its headquarters in these Lublin camps before Baier wrote this letter, did it?
A. These works were here before Baier, before August 1943 because in February 1943 we founded the Osti. The Osti Works were there.
Q. In this letter Baier tells the Chief of W-IV that he can go ahead and establish the Central Administration of the DAW; that it can be established at Cracow, and states that Mohinkel will be appointed head of the Central Administration in Cracow.
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. He did work out the details of establishing the headquarters at Cracow, did he not?
A. I believe that is Baier's work, but I am not quite sure of the details. This is a Central Administration in order to have all the plants, including those from the DAW which existed in the Government General, made independent of Berlin. For purely commercial reasons this was necessary.
Q. Just answer the following question with yes or no. This goes beyond the field of auditing work, does it not?
A. You cannot say that like that. From that Central Administration a number of simplifications would result concerning commercial matters such as bookkeeping; and I always regarded these to be connected with each other.
Q. You stated that Hohberg carried out similar functions to Baier. Is it correct that Hohberg proceed Baier in Staff W?
A. Yes. Well, Hohberg did roughly the same things as Baier did as an auditor and accountant.
Q. Before we leave Baier, I should like to ask you, when did you first meet Baier?
A. I knew Baier in my navy days.
Q. When did he first work under your supervision?
A. In 1937 when he left the navy and joined the SS. Then he was in charge of the administration school; and from that time on he worked under me.
Q. When did he first join the Administrative Office of the SS?
A. He came to Berlin, I believe, in August 1943.
Q. Do you know whether he was drafted into the SS or whether he joined voluntarily?
A. No, at that time he was transferred from the Navy to the SS. This was an order, and I was at the back of this transfer.
Q. Coming to the defendant Hohberg, when did you first meet Hohberg?
A. I met Hohberg in 1940.
Q. When did he first work under your supervision?
A. I believe in the same year, in 1940.
Q. Was he under your supervision in the Budget and Construction and was that not the Main Office of the WVHA?
A. No, Economy and Administration that was called. Budget and construction was the Reich Sector; and the economic enterprises were the Party Sector. Service and Economy; and it was there that Hohberg worked under me.
Q. He worked under your supervision in the Main Office of WVHA administration and Economy?
A. In the Main Office Administration and Economy; and after 1942 he was in the WVHA. In 1940 the Main Office was called Administration and Economy; and after 1942 it was called WVHA.
Q. Can you state whether Hohberg was engaged in carrying out any kind of supervision over the auditing, finance, and taxation matters of the DWB?
A. Hohberg was my auditor for the DWB or for all branches affiliated to it and also my consultant in tax matters. He had a contract with us as an auditor.
Q. Did he have any power of supervision over any phase of the SS industries?
A. No, he had no powers of supervision. His was a pure office activity in Berlin.
Q. Did you ever discuss the utilization of inmate labor with Hohberg?
A. No.
Q. You know, don't you, that Hohberg also engaged in the negotiations concerning the so-called wage scale for inmate labor as shown by the documents in evidence?
A. Of course, Hohberg knew that inmates were used in certain enterprises; but he had nothing to do with labor allocation for these inmates because those questions were known in Staff W; and when auditing and accounting was done, it became clear.
Q. Certainly there was no one who worked in Staff W who didn't know that inmate labor was being employed on an extensive scale in the SS industries; isn't that correct?
A. He knew it, yes.
Q. He says in his affidavit that he arranged to have Volk transferred from the Dest. Do you know anything about that?
A. I'm afraid I didn't follow that.
Q. Hohberg says in his affidavit that he arranged to have the defendant Volk transferred from the Dest. Do you know anything about that?
A. Volk as far as I know was never a member of the Dest. I do not know what he means by this. I do not know anything about the fact that Volk should have belonged to the Dest at any time.
Q. Your answer is that you do not know anything about it?
A. Yes.
MR. ROBBINS: Would you turn to the first document in Book 14? My copy of this document seems to be missing. Does the translator have an extra copy of this document?
THE INTERPRETER: What document number is it, Mr. Robbins?
MR. ROBBINS: It is NO-551.
THE INTERPRETER: Yes, we do.
MR. ROBBINS: I am sorry, Your Honor, I am referring to the wrong document. It is in Book 15, and it is Document NO-1035. Do you have it?
A Yes, I do.
Q Will you tell the Tribunal what this letter is?
A That is a suggestion from Dr. Hohberg coming to me concerning the working hours, and wage scale of the inmates.
Q Incidentally, while we are on this point. You testified on direct examination that private industries when they were to receive concentration camp labor should not pay less for inmates than they did for free labor. That their incentive in using concentration camp inmates was not to save money but merely because of manpower shortage. That is not true, is it?
A Yes, that is quite correct.
Q It is not true, is it, that private industry paid less for inmate labor than they did for free labor?
A Private enterprises, so far as I am informed, had to pay the same wages for inmate which they would pay for the same type of free worker.
Q What does the first sentence in the letter mean then: "The advantage of low prisoners' daily wages at thirty pennings will become evident in the workshops employing prisoners - " and so on?
A Well, the W-Enterprises of the SS had a very different history. As they had been established with the Reich and foreign funds only, in the first year of their existence they first of all did not pay any money out at all. Later on very low wages were paid, and later still a bit more. Soon it was possible to see what these enterprises produced because an immediate wage scale adjustment on the wages of the free labor would have resulted only in the expenditures being met by taking up new credits.
Q Just a moment, just a moment. Will you turn to the next document there in the book, which is Exhibit No. 406. Dr. Hohberg is writing to Maurer, Amtsgruppe-D, and he is referring to profits which the SS Industry - this is the second part of the document.
He is referring to profits which the SS Industry made in the utilization of Jewish prisoners enterprises at Lublin. Do you see that? It is Hohberg's letter to Maurer. It is the second document in this book, which is Book 15.
A Yes, I have it.
Q He is referring to profits and he said: "It is therefore possible to determine for any chosen period exactly what profits were derived by the employment of Jewish prisoners," and he refers to the use of Jewish inmates at Lublin?
A Yes.
Q Will you turn to Document NO-736, Exhibit No. 467. This is a memorandum by Dr. Wenner, and he says: "There are two reasons for the fact that the SS Industry makes such high profits. One of them is that in many W-Enterprises most of the workers are prisoners," and it states "The money which the enterprises have to pay to the Reich for each prisoner does not on the average correspond to the work done by a prisoner. If, for example, the prisoner were replaced by a civilian worker the enterprise would normally have to pay a larger sum" That is true, isn't it. It is obvious from this document that private industry had to pay loss for concentration camp inmates than it did for free labor? Just answer the question, yes or no, and not discuss it at great length.
A Private industry did not pay less for inmates than for free labor workers.
Q When Hohberg said that they did, and when Dr. Wenner said they did, they did not know what they were talking about, is that correct?
A I believe that we are confusing things here.
Q Just answer the question. They are wrong when they say that industry -private industry - used to pay less for concentration camp inmates. They were not correct. That is to be answered, yes or no?
A I can not answer a question like that, I maintain that private enterprises paid the same wages for inmates as they did for free workers, but not the SS enterprise.
It can be only private enterprises of this context, because the SS enterprises, so far as wages for inmates were concerned, had to take quite different measures, and in all these documents here the only thing just referred to is employment of inmates in SS Industry and not private industry.
Q Isn't it true that a long discussion lasting over several months took place, and the main point of the discussion was that private industry was complaining because they had to pay more for their labor than the SS Industry had to pay for the labor they received?
A I know nothing about that, that private industry -
Q Very well. Will you turn back to the first document in this Book, which we were discussing, NO-1035, and do you see the suggestion by Hohberg that the profits made from the use of concentration camp inmates be collected by the WVHA, and turned over in full, or in part to the Lebensborn?
A That is just a suggestion made either by Hohberg or Wenner, and I did not even discuss that suggestion but refused it, and declined it as completely improper. It never happened, because if profits were there I would have increased the wages for inmates on the basis of those profits and transferred the profits to the Reich. I never thought in this way of giving the Lebensborn funds, or even part of the profits. I did not even discuss that suggestion because it was nonsense in this form.
Q You were a member of the Lebensborn, were you not?
A Yes, I believe we had all to be members. All SS members had to be members of the Lebensborn.
Q What position did you hold in the Lebensborn?
A I was just a member, as anybody else.
Q You were more than a member, weren't you? You held a high position in the Lebensborn?
A Well, I never carried out the functions of that letter. I can not even remember. I paid my contribution which was deducted from my salary, and I was never present in a conference, or anything else.
Q You never were supervising director of the Lebensborn?
A I don't believe they had a board of directors, but I was curator, or something of that sort, I can not recall.
Q Suppose you tell the Tribunal what was the organization known as the Lebensborn. What was the nature of it. What was its purposes?
A Lebensborn was a registered association founded by Himmler in order to, as it were, to have a practical institution to prevent abortions, to save children of good blood. Mothers with illegitimate children were to be given the opportunity to have their children born in decent homes, and to bring up their children there. There again, not all unmarried mothers were accepted indiscriminately. The father had to admit that he was the father, and the whole education from the beginning was to be put on a decent basis from an illicit marriage so far as the mother was concerned. The idea was to have the abortion, which was done in Germany by the hundreds of thousands to be prevented, and a practical attempt was to be made on the part of Himmler, who later on became Minister of the Interior, not only by enlightenment and propaganda but by giving a practical possibility of solving this problem of unmarried mothers. For that purpose he had founded the Lebensborn Association, which had a number of homes at its disposal; well equipped homes, both medical and so far as nursing personnel were concerned, where these unmarried mothers would be received.
These homes were financed by the contributions of all members of the SS who had to join the Lebensborn as a matter of duty. These contributions were adjusted to the rank and were collected monthly by deduction from one's salary. The president of the Lebensborn consisted of a business manager and a doctor. It is impossible that I was a member of the board or something, but when Lebensborn was being built up I had no part in it, and the honorary position which I held never did penetrate into my consciousness really.
Q. Well, it was not only to assist the mothers of illegitimate children, it was actually to encourage their having illegitimate children, wasn't it? It was designed to increase the population of the Reich, wasn't it?
A. No, no, that was not the task of Lebensborn. The Lebensborn was purely an institution in order to save illegitimate children. I know of no efforts made in encouraging their having illegitimate children. That was not the task of Lebensborn at all.
Q. It was designed to bring up children in the SS tradition, was it not? Just answer that yes or no.
A. No, no, that was not only confined to the SS. Other mothers were there too. The mothers did not always stay in the Lebensborn homes with their children, but, depending on their social position, in some cases only just before and after the birth, up to a certain period going as far as one or two years, which were exceptional cases.
Q. Now, you have told us that you were only a member of Lebensborn and not supervising director. I would like to show you Document 1362 and ask you if that does not show the contrary. It is addressed to the Supervising Director of the Lebensborn Pohl, is it not? Well, you can tell that without reading the entire letter.
A. Well, I do not recall that I was active in this connection at all. I may have been a curator or something. On occasions I would receive communications from the Lebensborn without actually being active in that connection.
Q. Lebensborn also took over numerous confiscated homes, did they not, homes that were confiscated from the Jews?
A. On such details I am not informed.
Q. Take another look at this document and see if it does not inform you further.
DR. HOFFMAN: (For Defendant Scheide): May it please the Court, might I ask that we would be given copies of these documents? This is the second document, and we have no chance of seeing it.
MR ROBBINS: If we have them here, which I think we do, I will supply copies. If not I will at the recess if I can find them.
Q. (By Mr. Robbins) It says that the Sanatorium Werwal which had been till now belonging to Jewish doctors was confiscated by the Gestapo at the time and turned over to the Lebensborn. That is in a letter addressed to you, isn't it? It also says because of the prospect to acquire additional furnishings through the confiscation of various Jewish or enemy enterprises for the homes of the Lebensborn the management made certain arrangements, etc. Well, I will submit the document and have it numbered, and it will speak for itself. I should like to mark it as Exhibit 527 for identification.
DR. SEIDL(For Defendant Oswald Pohl): May it please the Court, I object to this. Even if this document is admitted only for identification I object as long as the defense is not given a copy of it.
Q. (By Mr. Robbins) You don't remember it? You have no recollection of ever receiving the letter?
A. Oh, yes, I received it.
Q. You remember receiving the letter; you don't remember what the letter said though?
A. I read it just now.
Q. You didn't remember before I showed You the letter that you were managing director of the Lebensborn, however?
A. No, I did not recall. I was not a managing director.
Q. The letter says you were, doesn't it?
A. Please?
Q. Never mind, the letter will speak for itself. This is the organization, is it not, that Hohberg suggested the funds be turned over to?
DR. SEIDL (For Defendant Oswald Pohl): May it please the Court, the translation also says that Pohl was a managing director of Lebensborn. From the document in my hand now it shows quite clearly that Pohl quite obviously was a member of the supervisory board. That board obviously was an institution which had the same function as a board of director's, but there is no question of the document showing that the Defendant Pohl had any function which was the same as that of a director.
THE PRESIDENT: Was there anything in the indictment about this?
MR. ROBBINS: No, your Honor, I am using this to impeach the veracity of this witness. He had told us--There is something in the documents about it, there is something also in the indictment about confiscation of property for the use of the SS. The WVHA, it is alleged, handled the confiscation of property for the Lebensborn, and when I asked the witness if he was a member of the Lebensborn he said that he was. I asked him if he held a high position, and he said that he did not. Then I produced the document to show that he did.
THE PRESIDENT: The document indicates he was a member of the supervisory committee.
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, your Honor.
THE WITNESS: The WVHA never confiscated houses for the Lebensborn. We were not in a position to do so. The WVHA was not connected in any way with the activities of Lebensborn.
Q. (By Mr. Robbins) You handled the financial affairs of the Lebensborn, did you not?
A. No.
Q. You didn't handly the budget of Lebensborn?
A. No, we never did.
Q. You have already stated that you handled the budget matters of all of the main offices. This was a part of one of the main offices unser Himmler, wasn't it?
A. Lebensborn had nothing to do with the budgets of the main offices. It was a private association. I do not know where the Lebensborn got its money from. I turned down here the suggestion to turn over profits from enterprises to Lebensborn. It would have been quite easy for me to do so, but I declined it definitely.
Q. You did not turn down the suggestion that buildings be confiscated for use of the Lebensborn even from Jewish families even though you were on the supervisory board, did you?
A. That is not a suggestion here, but it is purely a report made by the supervisory member which reached Himmler and probably the other so-called members of the supervisory board. I received this report so rarely that I didn't even recall I was a member of the supervisory board.
MR. ROBBINS: That is obvious.
DR: SEIDL (For Defendant Oswald Pohl) May it please the Court, before we leave this document I should like to point out that the letter submitted by the Prosecution is dated 21 June 1938. That is to say it was written at a time where there was no WVHA in existence even.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the date?
DR. SEIDL: 21 June 1938.
Q. (By Mr. Robbins) Well, if there was not a WVHA in existence there was a Berwaltungsamt at that date, was there not, and you were in charge of that, and that handled the budgetary matters of the SS?
A. I declare here that neither the Verwaltungsamt nor the WVHA had anything to do with Lebensborn. Even if people called me a member of the supervisory board, it was an association completely apart from the WVHA, and it was in charge of Standargenfuehrer Sollmann in Munich. Lebensborn was a registered association and a private asso ciation.
We never gave it any money at all.
Q. Lebensborn was not dissolved in 1938, was it? It continued right up through the end of the war, didn't it, right through your administration of the WVHA?
A. I believe Lebensborn existed up to the end, but had nothing to do with the WVHA. The fact that I personally was listed as a member of the supervisory board has no significance for any connection with the WVHA. It was purely a personal matter. I had no right to inspect their books or decide measures for the Lebensborn.
Q. Even though you were on the supervisory board you took no steps to stop the confiscation of property, did you? You can answer that yes or no.
A. No, I took no steps.
MR. ROBBINS: Would it be convenient to recess at this time?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal No. 2 is again in session.
DR. SEIDL: (Attorney for the Defendant Oswald Pohl): Your Honors, in the cross-examination before the recess, the prosecution submitted a number of documents to the Defendant Pohl. Up to now, the defense has not received any copies of the documents and all the defense counsels are interested in seeing these documents particularly due to count one (1) of the indictment. Therefore, I would like the Tribunal to rule that the prosecution should only be allowed to submit documents in cross-examination when it at the same time supplies copies of these documents to the defense, in order to enable the defense to raise objections at the appropriate time. There is no sense objecting to a document if it has been presented, especially if the document is presented in the course of the cross-examination. In the previous trials it has been the rule that the defense would receive a copy of all the documents at the same time as they would be presented. I think that this should be an order of procedure which should be adopted also in this court.
MR. ROBBINS: May I say a word on this, your Honor? I think there have been only two documents that we haven't had processed and mimeographed in English and in German. I think all of the rest that I will offer have been, and certainly those cases will be at a minimum. I should like to explain to the Tribunal the handicap that we are laboring under, however. It is impossible to know even an hour in advance the completely unpredictable statements that Pohl is going to make. We pass the document room practically every hour, your Honor, to get a document that I haven't even seen a translation of myself. I only have a short digest of the document.
For instance, Pohl has just testified that he had nothing whatever to do with the financing of the Lebensborn; that it was not under his office whatever. During the recess I found an analysis of a document which proves that that is an absolute lie. I had no idea that it would be necessary to produce the document because I supposed that Pohl would concede such an obvious fact.
I suggest that we would be put at an impossible handicap if we had to go to the trouble of processing each document before we presented it. As I said, there will be a minimum of cases, I hope. We have mimeographed almost all of the documents in this case and have them translated; but there are some that we have not.
THE PRESIDENT: I am sure defense counsel will realize that the prosecution has no way of knowing whether it will need the documents until the witness had answered the question. The need for the document arises only after the witness has given an unsatisfactory answer; and the need for the document cannot be anticipated. Mr. Robbins has just given an example of it. He did not know that Pohl would deny the relation with the Lebensborn until the witness gave his answer; and immediately then he needed a document with which to attack that answer.
I don't think the defense loses any rights or any advantage. It can always attack these documents and sooner or later will have a translation of the documents in their hands.
Meanwhile the document is translated into German as it is read so that you are not entirely ignorant of what the document says. We are not prepared to rule that documents which are used in impeaching a witness or for refreshing his recollection must be anticipated and translated and copies furnished before the prosecution can use the document in examining the witness.
Judge Phillips suggests the further point that these documents are not offered in evidence and that any objection to them can be raised at the time that they are offered.
MR. ROBBINS: As I have just stated, I have not seen myself a complete translation of this one-page letter, which shows that the administrative organization under Pohl handled a substantial part of the financing of the SS and that he was completely advised of all of the details. I would like to ask permission first to have the translators read the letter in English and then in German and then give a copy of the letter to the defendant Pohl.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you identified the letter?
MR. ROBBINS: I think the letter will speak for itself. It is a letter from Himmler to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Dr. Ebner, dated 4 March 1940.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. I should like to ask the witness first if he knows who Dr. Ebner is.
A. Dr. Ebner, I believe, was one of the managers in the Board of Supervisors of the Lebensborn, he was a physician there.
Q. MR. ROBBINS: Will the interpreter read it?
THE PRESIDENT: Have you given it an exhibit number?
MR. ROBBINS: I would like to reserve exhibit number 528 for this document and mark it for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: The translator may read the document in English and in German.