Q That C-VI was the authority for preliminary examinations of the building plans for the crematoria, gas chambers, and concentration camps?
A No, that is not correct, the preliminary examination of the building plans. Planning and accounting must be separated here. Amt C-VI had nothing to do with the planning, the planning for construction work, but after the construction had taken place and after the buildings had been completed it had to make a preliminary auditing of these accounts. However, it had nothing to do with the planning of the construction work. They did not know before what was planned and what construction was to take place. After the completion of the buildings, afterwards through the accounts and the bills which had been submitted for preliminary examination, they knew what had been built.
Q It is not correct to say, is it, that C-VI had nothing whatever to do with construction of concentration camps if they had to approve the expenses for the camps?
A In no way. They did not have to approve the expenses either. Amt C-VI in a certain way was in the end of all these things. When everything had been completed, when the construction had taken place and the money had been spent, then months later the documents for these constructions and funds which had been spent would arrive at Amt C-VI and they were audited there, it was examined whether the expenses kept within the framework of the budget and they were checked if they were in accordance with the regulations by the price administration. However, then the construction work could not be changed any more. It had already been completed.
Q Before we leave this affidavit I would like to refer to your testimony with regard to the Defendant Sommer. Last week you were asked this question: "What do you have to say with regard to the allegation of the Prosecution that Sommer had been a deputy chief of Amt D-II?
"A I do not know anything to the effect that he had ever been appointed to that position.
He was never the Deputy Chief of the office. I can also recall that he was never appointed deputy of the office."
Will you refer to Paragraph 22 of the affidavit which is in your hands which reads that Hauptsturmfuehrer Karl Sommer was deputy chief of Office D-II, labor allocations. That is what it says in the affidavit, does it not?
A Yes, that is quite correct. Hauptsturmfuehrer Karl Sommer was deputy in Amt D-II. That was very important, and I have thought over this matter. It does not say deputy of the chief of the office of Amt D-II, but he was one of the collaborators who just took over the work whenever the senior was lacking. Already because of his low grade and rank, and because of his duration in office he could not even be considered to be deputy of the office chief.
Q Will you just tell us which is correct, your statement to this court last week that Sommer was not deputy chief, or the statement in the affidavit that Sommer was deputy chief?
A It is not stated here that he was the deputy chief. Sommer was never the deputy of the chief of the office. I never heard that he had been appointed to that position.
DR. SEIDL (For Defendant Oswald Pohl): Your Honor, I once again have to point out a mistake in the translation which is contained in this affidavit. Under Paragraph 22 of the affidavit it is stated, Hauptsturmfuehrer Karl Sommer was deputy in the Office D-II. It is not stated that he was the deputy of the chief. In my opinion the English text of Paragraph 22 should read correctly, "Hauptsturmfuehrer Karl Sommer was deputy in Office D-II." I am not a linguist, but in my opinion the word "chief" should be omitted.
Q (By Mr. Robbins): Witness, is there a difference between a deputy in an office and a deputy of an office? Is there a difference?
A There is a very big difference. By that I mean to say when the Chief of an office goes away then he can tell the next senior in the office - they may have been several and may have changed - but he can tell him that in his absence he should give information, things of that kind, while the deputy of the chief of the office has a formal appointment and a certain position and pay which was never the case with Sommer.
Q That is not what you told the Court last week, is it, that Sommer's duties were? You did not tell the Tribunal that he was a deputy in the office?
A I never meant anything else. It is clearly expressed in this affidavit. He was a deputy in the office, and there may have been several deputies of that kind. That may have changed. A certain person could have been used to represent somebody else, but that is something completely different from what we called the deputy of a chief of an office. I was trying to clarify this difference. I have well thought it over, when I stated here in Paragraph 22, "deputy in the Office D-II," I can only say that it is unknown to me that Sommer, as shown of a list of persons in the Office D-II, had ever been deputy of the chief of that office.
MR. ROBBINS: Does the Court wish to recess at this time?
THE PRESIDENT: At any time you like.
MR. ROBBINS: My watch is a little fast.
Q (By Mr. Robbins): Before leaving this affidavit then, I would like to refer to your testimony with regard to Baier, the Defendant Baier rather. You stated, "I can not recall that any member of Staff W was appointed chief of the office," and you went ahead to testify that Baier was never Chief of Staff W. Will you refer to Paragraph 29 of this same affidavit. "Oberfuehrer Hans Baier was Chief of Stab W from 1934 to 1939."
THE PRESIDENT: 1943.
Q "1943 to 1945,", I am sorry. That is what the affidavit says, does it not?
A Yes.
Q Do you wish to modify your prior testimony?
A No. In this case also I have repeatedly pointed out that the entire designation of the economic enterprises as Amtsgruppe - and the absence of the designation which are usual with the other Amtsgruppen primarily and solely was selected by me in order to make the picture more simple and more clear, in order to make it easier for myself to overlook these things, and I did not want to give a military organizational position, which would have been in contradiction with the functions of the members of staff W from the point of view of commercial law.
Q You wrote letters to him addressed "Chief of Staff W," did you not?
A Naturally, of course.
Q Still he was not Chief of Staff W?
A I can not remember that a single member of Staff W ever had received a commission, that he was appointed chief of the office or anything similar. That was the title which we used.
Q Then your affidavit is incorrect, that Baier was Chief of Staff W?
A It depends on how you interpret that. The way we understood it is clear.
Q In other words, you can say on one day that Baier was Chief of Staff W and on the next day he was not chief of Staff W, and both statements would be correct, is that right? Yes or no?
A I have already stated that I will not modify my testimony here With that I have explained clearly what I mean. What is understood under Chief of Staff W, is perhaps very hard to describe. I have said that this was a form which was selected by us under consideration of the total organization of the WVHA. Otherwise, I would have had to add as Amtsgruppe X the whole organization of enterprises, and that would have made the picture very difficult to overlook. I was trying to avoid this, and that is why I used here the form of the other Amtsgruppen.
Q In other words, you can understand the same thing when two absolutely contradictory things, and at one point you say he was a chief, and at another point you say he was not chief?
THE PRESIDENT: This will be a convenient point to recess.
THE MARSHAL: This Tribunal is in recess until 13:45.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 27 May 1947)
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal No. 2 is again in session.
OSWALD POHL - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION - Continued
THE PRESIDENT: Some of the German counsel speak English, so if you will carry this message to the rest: Friday is an American holiday -Memorial Day--for the soldiers dead of all wars. I am afraid that about Thursday at twelve-thirty we will have to stop these proceedings and the Tribunal will spend the rest of the afternoon in conference. Don't take that too seriously....
I am talking to you now so that if you want to arrange a conference somewhere, you will have Thursday afternoon to do it, and Friday.
DR. GAWLICK: (Counsel for the defendants Volk and Bobermin) I would appreciate it if this tribunal would possibly give an order to the effect as to how far the Prosecution has the right, after having completed its case, to introduce new evidence, new exhibits.
The Prosecution now in the cross-examination, has introduced new documents--a few of them only in order to refresh the defendant's memory. However, the Prosecution has given exhibit numbers to these documents. Through that, these documents have become exhibits.
I believe that the Prosecution no longer has the right, after having completed its case, to introduce new evidence; or then, if the Prosecution does that, it must justify that action, because by that the rights of the Defense are prejudicial to the Defense. As far as the documents that the Prosecution have brought are concerned, we have our counter-evidence. We have examined them. However, if, until the end of the introduction of evidence, we have to assume that more and more material will be introduced by the Prosecution--then we are no longer in a position to bring the necessary counter-evidence.
MR. ROBBINS: May I say, your Honor, that we are making the search daily for documents which would rebut what the defendant says. We have some documents which we have kept for the purpose of refreshing his recollection and also for the purpose of impeaching the veracity of the witness. Certainly as documents come in from time to time and come to our attention, documents which rebut the evidence of the defense and contradict their testimony, it would seem that would be proper evidence which the Court should accept. I do not think that there is any rule that the prosecution cannot put in any evidence at the close of its case.
THE PRESIDENT: We are ready to rule, Mr. Robbins. When a witness is on the stand for cross examination, it is proper to show him any documents, first, to refresh his recollection, or, second, to impeach him, or to show that he is not testifying truly. When those documents have been shown to him, it is proper to number them as exhibits in order that the Court may have them in the record and determine whether or not in fact they do impeach the witness or refresh his recollection. This does not prevent the defense, however, in due time from denying the documents or bringing other documents or other witnesses to dispute them. It does not mean that the hands of the defense are tied or that it cannot go ahead and attack these documents. It has that opportunity. But these documents are properly admitted on cross examination, either to contradict the witness or to refresh his memory.
DR. GAWLICK: Then, Your Honor, I should appreciate it referring to these documents which receive an exhibit number by the prosecution, if the same regulation be applied to those documents; namely, that the documents be introduced to the defense twenty-four hours in advance. We have learned here, absolutely by chance, that those documents have certain mistakes in translation. Therefore, it is not possible for us to detect these mistakes without further difficulty during the proceedings. Furthermore, I should also like to draw to your attention one point in the German penal law which is important and which cannot be omitted in my opinion.
According to the German law a defendant who has introduced a new document, regardless of for what reason, has the right to ask for sort of a recess. That, according to my opinion, is correct, if these documents he shown to us twenty-four hours in advance.
THE PRESIDENT: You see, it is impossible to give them to you twenty-four hours in advance because in order to do that, you would have to know what the witness is going to say ahead of time. You wouldn't know whether he should be contradicted or not ahead of time. You can't tell that until he testifies. But you will be furnished translations of these documents; and if the translation is wrong or if you wish to attack these documents, you will have the chance to do that later.
DR. HOFFMANN (for the defendant Scheide): I have only a few words to say about this, your Honor. Is it not possible that these documents be called differently due to the fact that so many documents are introduced here? The current enumeration is not very easily separated from the others. If those new documents intend that, then they might to be differentiated from those documents which have been introduced so far by the prosecution; and they should not be numbered any further.
THE PRESIDENT: These documents have not been offered in evidence. They have been given an exhibit number just to identify them; but they are not in evidence. They are not in the record as proof or as evidence. They have not been offered.
DR. HOFFMANN: I see. Thank you.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Before we leave the period prior to the organization of the WVHA, I should like to ask you if you recall making a tour with Eicke, who was inspector of the concentration camps, in June in 1938 with Eicke and Sturmbannfuehrer Hubert Karl to Austria and to Weiden.
A. I did not quite understand the last name which you mentioned.
Q. To a place near Weiden, later on known as Flossenburg.
A. Yes, in 1938 I was in Austria; and I saw the quarry there in Mauthausen or Wienergraben, rather, as it was called at the time, and also Weiden. However, I do not know for sure if he was there, if Karl was there. But I was there. That was 1938 after the occupation of the Ostmark; and I was down at the quarry.
Q. Do you remember making a trip with Eicke and with Karl to Mauthausen or to the place where Mauthausen concentration camp was later erected, for the purpose of selecting a location for the camp?
A. The reason for that trip was the visit of Wienergraben. As I said before, the quarry was near Mauthausen. I believe that Himmler was there, too.
Q. It was the practice to erect concentration camps near stone works or stone quarries, was it not?
A. That was not always the reason. Of course, as far as the possibilities were there, they tried to have some sort of work for these inmates; but all concentration camps were not built near quarries. Most of the time Himmler personally designated the location. Also, he visited the place before they built the camp at least once.
Q. Then on this particular trip in June 1938 do you recall that you went with Eicke and with Karl for the purpose of selecting the location for Mauthausen for the concentration camp?
A. I remember that at that time I visited the quarry of Wienergarben near Mauthausen the location of the concentration camp and the selection of the area was not under my authority.
Q. I didn't ask you if it was under your authority. Did you go there for the purpose of selecting a concentration camp and advising Himmler on that subject?
A. Well, I remember that I drove there in order to visit the quarry of Wienergraben with which we were carrying out negotiations for the purchase of that quarry with the town of Vienna. However, I also remember that on one of the visits--I no longer recall whether it was on that or another occasion, Himmler was personally there and we were discussing the site of that concentration camp. I myself made no proposal how and where the concentration camp was to be built.
Q. The camp was built after that trip, was it not?
A. Yes. Yes, it was. Yes, after 1938.
Q. You say that you discussed the location with Himmler?
A. Well, I know for sure that I went up in order to see the quarry. It is possible that on that occasion we also discussed the site or the location for the concentration camp and I believe that Himmler was there too.
Q. Wasn't the primary purpose for the trip to make recommendations for the location for the camp and to make recommendations to Himmler?
A. Well, I believe that Himmler himself selected the location on the spot. I don't believe I am wrong when I am saying that Himmler was present.
Q. And you say that you made no proposals or recommendations to Himmler?
A. I can no longer recall that. I no longer recall having made a suggestion to Himmler and to where the camp should be located. At the time I was mainly interested in that place due to the quarries.
Q. What was your interest in the quarry?
A. If it was worth exploiting and how large it was, etc. There were negotiations for the purchase of that quarry with Vienna, because Vienna owned that quarry and that was the reason why I went to see that quarry before we could but it, in order to gain some sort of an impression about the locations and the view of exploiting it.
Q. And for whom were you purchasing the quarry? Was that for the DEST?
A. Yes, it was bought by the DEST.
Q. And you supervised the negotiations for the purchase?
A. Well, no, not I, personally. I participated in it, but I believe that at that time it was Salpeter, who did that. I couldn't tell you for sure.
Q. But it was under his jurisdiction?
A. Yes, of course.
Q I ask you if about two or three weeks later, you recall having made another trip with the same two persons, namely Eicke and Hubert Karl, Sturmbannfuehrer, to Flossenbuerg, a place where Flossenbuerg camp was later erected?
A. Yes, I was there too.
Q. What was the purpose of your trip?
A. The same. The purpose was the same, namely, the possibility of making use of a marble quarry and to see how these quarries could be used..
Q. Did you make recommendations as to the location of the camp?
A. No, the location of the concentration camp was selected by Eieke and was also decided by him and the quarry was a granite quarry and not marble.
Q. In both of these instances, both in Mauthausen and Flossenbuerg, were the quarries acquired by the DEST?
A. Yes, they were later on purchased by the DEST.
Q. And the reason for it being located--the reason for the camp being located in this particular place was so that the inmate labor could be used in exploiting the quarry, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. I show you again Document NO-620, which we were discussing this morning, the chart of the Main Office, Building and Construction. It's true, is it not that there was a labor allocation under your jurisdiction in each of the concentration camps at the period which this chart represents, namely, 1939 to 1942; there was a representative of your office in the concentration camp, was there not?
A. No, that is not quite correct the way you put it. I had no representative of my office in the concentration camps who was dealing or who was allegedly dealing with the labor assignment, because the labor assignment leaders who were used as of 1942 were agents of the camp commandant. They were not subordinate to me.
Q. The Office I-5, which was the Prison Labor Allocation Office, allocated inmate labor to the various industries, did it not?
A. Yes, that is correct. This work was to be carried out within the framework of Amt. I. However, as I said before, this Main Office I-5, was soon transferred to the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps and thus subordinated, or, rather, thus my authority was elimated. I believe that this Main Department I-5 was not installed immediately in February 1939, but as I recall, it was only established later. I believe it was in 1940.
Q. You said this morning that Office I-5 was incorporated into the Inspectorate a few months after the Main Office, Building and Construction was created in 1939. I should like to show you Document NO-2315 and ask you if, as a matter of fact, it wasn't 1941 when this transfer took place. The first paragraph says the Main Department I-5 is being dissolved, effective 30 September 1941. Does that refresh your recollection?
A. Yes, that's correct. I thought it was 1940, but apparently it is 1941, as it says here. I believe that Department had not already been established in 1939 with the formation of the main office, because as far as I can recall, the transfer into the Inspectorate took place because from Berlin within the frame work of the Main Office, it did not have the power of action, and because the inspector had to be in the camp most of the time.
That was the reason why it was dissolved in the Main Office and transferred. The why and when the camp was dissolved is correct, as it says here.
Q. I suppose we will have to get a document if the date Amt. 1-5 was created. You now say it was not created in 1939?
A. I don't believe so. I believe it was formed a little bit later.
Q. This morning you said it was 1940.
A. Yes, Yes, that is correct. I said that this morning and I still couldn't tell you the exact date. I am only starting from the fact that I remember well. I am stating that this Department I-5 only stayed in the Main Office for a very short time.
Q. Did this office handle the payment for the concentration camp guards, the Death Head Units?
A. No.
Q. No, I am sorry. I don't mean that. I meant, I mean the Main Office, Administration and Economy?
A. The economy and the payment of the Death Head Units were in that Department, because part of the entire economy of the Special Troop Tasks were there or in the Waffen-SS resources. In other words, the expenses for the Death Head Units were included in the total budget.
Q. Is that also true for the concentration camp commander?
A. Yes, the expenses for the concentration camps were also cut in that particular budget, including the personnel expenses. There was also the pay for the concentration camp inmates.
Q. And which Amt. was that? Was that I?
A. Yes, it was Amt. I budget. This Amt. I budgeted the entire Reich Budget for all units, organizations of the SS were compiled, which were financed by Reich means.
Q. And prior to 1939 the Berwaltungsamt had taken care of payment to the concentration camp commanders?
A. No, you have to differentiate here between payment and budget. Neither in the WVHA nor in the main office did we have anything to do with the payment and the Administrative Department. In other words, the payment of the funds which were created by the State went through the lower levels. That was not the task of the Main Office or of Amt. I. After all, we were nothing but a treasury.
Q. I am referring to Office III, A-3, correction, Office 2c. You told us this morning that this was under the Amt. for building and construction and that it was in charge of building concentration camps is that correct? It is called Concentration Camps and Police?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. And after 1939, concentration camps at Auschwitz were erected, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And also in Neuengamme?
A. Yes, all these camps were built later on, after 1939.
Q. That is true of Lublin, Stutthof, Natzweiler, Gross Rosen?
A. Yes.
Q. Bergen Belsen?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you turn to your Document Book No. 2, or to Document R-129, which is on page 69 of the German?
It is on page 66 of the English and it is Exhibit No. 40. This is a letter from you to Himmler, is it not?
A. 69? Do you mean Document C-1063?
Q. Perhaps I have the wrong page. It is R-129 of the German.
A. It is on page 70.
Q. This is a letter from you to Himmler, dated 3 April 1942, and there you say that at the outbreak of the war, 1939, the following camps were in existence: Dachau, Sachsenhausen, Buchenwald, Mauthausen, Flossenburg and Ravensbrueck, is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Then from '40 to 42 nine other camps were erected as follows: Auschwitz, Nevengamme, Gusen, Natzweiler, Gross-Rosen, Lublin, Niederhagen, Stutthof and Arveitsdorf. Then you report these fifteen camps conformed to the organization of the old concentration camps in regard to duties, work, composition of commanding staff, and discipline in camp for protective custody. For instance, in these fifteen camps the following special duties have been assigned: "To the SS Special Camp Hinzert commanding staff and guards are under my order." Do you see that? Paragraph 3-4, "Commanding staff and guards are under my orders."
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. It is correct that the guards and the commanding staff in each of these camps were under your order, is it not?
A. Yes, that is to be understood in the following way, namely: That commandintur and the guard detail for the Waffen-SS of the concentration camps, and, therefore, being acquainted with the chart they were subordinated to me.
Q. In paragraph 4 you say, "I think it right to submit such plans, that is, for the creation of a camp for the protection of youth at Muhunger, for the protection of youth at Uckermark, and camp for protection of youth at Litzmannstadt. I think it is right to submit such plans to SS-WVHA, which they may plan and carry out uniformly by one authority for SS and Police, so as it is now.
Were such plans submitted to you?
A. No. I heard about them, the Fuehrungshauptamt, that they had participated as RSHA, but they were like their own competency, that is, on the operation of the Main Office. The suggestion which I am making here is the fact that according to all possible plans that could exist, one central main office was to deal with those matters, and not several of the main offices, namely the task that the Inspectorate had already been incorporated into the WVHA, and, as to the transfer of the, because this would make things easier.
Q. Then you say that your recommendation is this respect was not followed?
A. No, I can not say that in here. In order to avoid a muddle, I made a candid suggestion after I heard about it. However, how far these plans of the other two departments were, I could not tell you.
Q. With respect to plans of later on, I would like to call your attention to your testimony of last week, on May 16th, and where counsel asked you at page 1,284, "If you participated in a meeting which took place with the commanders of concentration camp at Oranienburg," and you gave this answer: "I did not participate in one single official meeting which the chief of Inspectorate at Oranienburg had with the concentration camp commanders." I'll ask you to look at sub-paragraph 3 under Roman II, and see if you would like to change your testimony. There you say, "I have gathered together all the leaders of former Inspectorate of concentration camps, all camp commandants, and all managers and supervisors of work, on the 23 and 24 April 1942." Did you attend this meeting that you reported to Himmler?
A. This absolutely complies with the statement I made before, namely, that I personally did not participate in any official conversation of commandants at Oranienburg. I recently drew your attention to the fact that the only meeting in which I participated with the commandants, and in which we discussed official questions was the one which took place on the 23 or 24 April, but as to that conference in Berlin, which was after the incorporation of the Inspectorate into the WVHA, which became necessary in order to give instructions to the commanders as to the administrative work, that is what I always said.
Q. Excuse me, may I ask if you would kindly shorten your answers, as in this case I asked you merely do you want to change your testimony, and your answer would simply be, no, in this case. I would like to point out, however, that in that time you did not make any inspection; you just now made the statement, and then you say, I did not participate in one single meeting with the chief of Inspectorate and concentration camp commandants. I direct your attention also to paragraph 4, where is said, "The transfer of the Inspectorate of concentration camp to the Main Office Economic and Administrative has been carried out under full agreement of all Main Offices concerned, the collaboration of all authorities go on without any question." Do you recall last week you testified there was no collaboration between the Main Offices?
A. Yes, that is correct, too.
Q. That is not consistent with the statement you made to Himmler, is it?
A. In the other Main Offices in reference to this incorporation of the Inspectorate, there was no conference. In any case I can not recall that I participated with any of my collaborators, or that any of my collaborators ever had any conference with other offices, or main officers. It was responsible under Gluecks, namely that Gluecks said that to the WVHA, and that there was no conference, and the Inspectorate had no contact with other Main Offices.
Q. I am not talking about what Gluecks said. I am talking about what you said. What does this mean if it does not mean there was some conference with the Main Offices. It said, "That if transfer of the Inspectorate to the WVHA has been carried out under full agreement of all Main Office, collaboration of all authorities go on without any protection. Abolishment of lack of collaboration in concentration camp has failed everywhere," and so forth?
A. It said that the transfer, sofar as I can read it and it is written pretty badly, it was the full agreement of all Main Offices concerned, and concerned with participating were the WVHA, or the Fuehrungshauptamt, which was the Inspectorate that belonged to them, which had joined, and the RSHA, the Reich Security Main Offices; that is to say, three out of twelve that were counted conferences in this matter, so far as I can recall, never did take place, at least, I did not lead one of them.
Q. The concentration camp commandants were also head or leaders of the various SS Industries in the various concentration camps, were they not?
A. Yes. At the same time, I never nominated or appointed them managers --- Enterprise managers for the same reasons I mentioned before.
Q. And they were paid by the SS Industry?
A. Yes, by the Enterprises, yes. That is, out of the fund of those Enterprises.
Q. You say you never attended any conferences with the Concentration camp commandants?
A. I myself did have one conference on 23 or 24 April, as I have described before.
Q. Is that the only one you ever had with them? As a matter of fact, did not you almost always have supper with them the day before they had their official meetings at Oranienburg?
A Yes, I have already said that, namely, that you have to differentiate here between the official conferences at Oranienburg and the evening meals the night before, and it depended entirely on the time which I had, and it either took place in Berlin or in Oranienburg itself, but that had nothing to do with the official conferences.
Q What was discussed in these conferences at the supper?
A Well, whatever you discuss on those conferences, whatever one discusses at dinner, because the concentration-camp commandants met every two or three months, and the next one or two or three days they had enough opportunity to discuss certain matters. Therefore, there was no reason to discuss those same matters during supper, because it was just a friendly meeting with the camp commandants.
Q Did they talk to you about the industries in the concentration camps in these meetings?
A No, neither did I have a speech, nor did I speak about official matters. We just had our meal together and then that was all.
THE PRESIDENT: You said this was usually held in the officers' mess, did you not?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And no special guests were invited, but anyone who wanted to could drop in for the meal?
THE WITNESS: Yes. It was no special occasion on which I would have invited guests, or I would have ordered people to be there. That was just within the framework of the natural supper.
JUDGE MUSSMANO: Did your staff usually accompany you when you attended the bi-monthly meetings of the commandants, the camp commandants?
THE WITNESS: I did not quite understand the translation in German. Would you please repeat, your Honor?
JUDGE MUSSMANO: Yes. I understood you to say in answer to a question put by Mr. Robbins that every two or three months the camp commandants would gather and that you would attend those meetings. Now I am asking you whether your staff usually accompanied you to these meetings?
THE WITNESS: I remember exactly that whenever I drove to Oranienburg I drove out there all by myself. At most I was accompanied by my adjutant, but nobody else was present. I know that for sure.
Q (By Mr. Robbins) You say these meetings took place how often?
A Well, it was not very regular. I would say approximately every two months.
Q It is a fact, isn't it, that you often had individual conferences with camp commandants, that is conferences with the commandants individually?
A No, I cannot recall that commandants arrived there single. Maybe there were one or two cases, but they were just exceptional cases, either on some private matter or what-have-you, but not official.
Q Irrespective of the supper meetings, it is a fact, isn't it, that you often conferred with the individual commandant when you visited a concentration camp?
A Whenever I was in a concentration camp, of course, I spoke to the concentration camp commandant. He took me around. He accompanied me during my tours.
Q Turning to the next document, NO-504, I would like to ask you if from your collaboration with high-rank officials, and from your position in the SS, you can confirm the fact that the Reich planned to maintain a certain number of the concentration camps after the war? That is assuming, of course, that Germany should win the war?
A Yes.
Q That is in the document, is it not, NO-504?
A Well, at the end of the war we could not have been able to dissolve all the concentration camps at the same time. However, it was the intention of the Reich Government to eliminate a certain number of concentration camps, or then to keep a certain number of concentration camps active as penitentiaries. I couldn't tell for sure. But according to this document, NO-504, and according to the personnel strength, there would remain concentration camps that were there. At the end of the war there would remain approximately eleven still in use, and peacetime state funds had been put at their disposal, or overheads had to be.