A. No, that had nothing to do with Office Group W. It was a measure that simply concerned the enterprises themselves.
Q. When discussing auditing problems, that is to say, the results which would result from an auditing measure, surely you discussed with the Defendant Baier the question of how an enterprise should be run in future. I want to give you two slogans for instance, here, a conservative or consolidating or expanding measure, for instance. What was the view which Baier would take?
A. I myself took the view that time had come to stop any further expansion of our economic enterprises, which is the reason why I maintained therefore the existing enterprises should be consolidated, and Baier had to follow that view, and he did that on his own initiative actually because he shared my view.
Q. Concerning Osti, Witness, I have two questions. Osti, several months before Baier joined Staff W, had been founded, and if I followed you correctly yesterday, in the autumn of 1943 it had been dissolved, is that correct?
A. Well, the liquidation of Osti was not finished in the autumn of 1943. It was still used for a period of time after that.
Q. Now about the DWB, what did DWB have to do with Osti?
A. The DWB had nothing to do with Osti because Osti was not a branch of DWB. I quoted it in the chart of Office W because I was on the board, but the business management was in Lublin, and points of contact where allocations of labor were concerned, were negligible.
Q. I shall now quote from Document Book 19, page 7 of the Terman text, Exhibit No. 61. And I shall quote from the last paragraph of a file note by Dr. Horn:
"It become clear from today's conference with the Obergruppenfurhrer that the managers of Osti, as far as all decisions and measures in connection with Osti are concerned, have a free hand."
Can you tell me what this means?
A. That means that the managers of Osti, including Horn and Globocnik were committed only by my orders, and are not subordinate to any of the members of Staff W, or had to take orders from Staff W.
Q. Witness, I want to touch on a question of relations between Office Group D and the other office groups. As I remember it, you said that you personally, because of Sauckel's orders, were used by Himmler only in questions of allocation of labor of inmates, and had been put above Gluecks because Himmler wanted a strong man to face Sauckel and stand up to Sauckel.
A. Did I understand you correctly? I said nothing of that. Sauckel's orders had nothing to do with my appointment. All I said was, it is possible that Himmler made his decision for that reason, because he was afraid that Sauckel after his appointment as Plenipotentiary for the Allocation of Labor in Germany might possibly reach out to the concentration camps. To prevent that, he put somebody above Gluecks-whom did not seem tough enough- and also saw that his official rank in the inspectorate was not sufficiently high, and he wanted to assign a higher office, which is the reason why he concentrated the allocation of labor into a higher office. But Himmler's fears were not justified. Sauckel never appeared in our offices and he worked on a completely different field.
Q. Quite so, witness, but I did not say that Himmler's fears were justified. But to sum up briefly, I think I said the same as you did.
Now I want another explanation in connection with this, this very specified order which was given to you personally. Surely, certain conditions resulted for the relations between other office groups and office group D?
A. No; no relations resulted from this.
Q. Thank you very much, witness. Now there is another question. You ordered Baier at one time to inspect the enterprises in the Litzmannstadt Ghetto? That is correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What did Baier and his escorts have to do there?
A. After Himmler had ordered that the Litzmannstadt Ghetto should be transformed into a concentration camp I, on January 1944, detailed Baier and Volk to go there; as I did not know conditions there they were to inform themselves and Baier was to look into the books as far as that was possible and thereby study the whole structure of the enterprise there, and report to me. That was the order. In other words, I wanted to be informed on the overall situation, because I could not go there myself.
Q. Now, please tell us what you mean by "overall situation." Perhaps I could ask you: Do you mean concerning the enterprise there?
A. Yes, of course; nothing else was necessary.
Q. One of my colleagues was answered by you yesterday that you did not know for certain what suggestion or what report was handed to you. Is that correct, or did I misunderstand you?
A. No, I know very well that the two of them advised me not to take over these enterprises.
Q. Now, from that term "Office Group W," which now has become a little clearer, perhaps as far as the economic and legal commercial aspects are concerned, we have seen, as a matter of course, that things overlapped up to a point.
Reich funds were used for W enterprises. Is that correct?
A. Reich credits? Yes.
Q. No, witness, I want to aim at something else. Wehrunachts tickets for railroads, automobiles, etc.
A. Yes, that happened when we built up the organization. The enterprises were housed in Reich property and the separation according to members of the Waffen-SS, soldiers and civilian employees, as far as expenditures were concerned, was not always made very strict there. With the result that the Reich, apart from the credits, would, without intention, take part in the expenditure of all enterprises against its will, so to speak. I recall that Baier studied that point and investigated it. I know that an examination of all this expenditure of the Reich was made and he found, as far as the members of the WaffenSS were concerned, who, although they worked as assistant workers in enterprises, were also paid by the Reich. The supply of trucks, travel expenses, of military personnel, and other items of that sort, were spotted by him in order to compensate the Reich afterwards. That reached quite a sum of money at the time. I believe it concerned five or six million Reichsmarks-which in this manner was paid back to the Reich from the enterprises. And on the basis of cleaning up this business, Gaier made the suggestion, which was carried out, that strict instructions were issued concerning the future payments of such expenses. From that time onward, enterprises had to pay immediately for all those overheads of the Reich.
Q. Witness, on direct examination you mentioned the Mattoni Limited. Did the DWB own the shares of that enterprise?
A. Yes, the majority of shares had been purchased by some bank--I believe the Deutsche Bank.
Q. Can you recall, witness, that Baier, who, on the occasion of auditing visit, came across the fact that some agency endeavored to buy the balance of the shares?
Can you tell us by and large what all this was about?
A. I can recall that only very dimly. I cannot recall the details.
Q. Then perhaps I might point out to you the balance of the shares belonged to a certain Eugen or Egon Mattoni; that Mattoni was, I believe, a homosexual and as such, was in a concentration camp. Can you recall the matter now?
A. Yes, I do but I do not recall the details. It is possible that the intention existed at the time to buy the balance of the shares. All I know is that actually, it was not bought.
Q. Can you not recall, witness, that this suggestion was made by Baier because he thought that it was impossible to buy shares from an inmate of a concentration camp, from a man, that is, who for all practical intents and purposes is exposed to the power of the Reich?
A. It is possible that Baier made that suggestion.
DR. FRITSCH: I have no further questions, Your Honors.
MR. ROBBINS: Before another counsel starts examination I respectfully request the Tribunal to strike from the record the witness's remarks about Russian domination of German's in the Russian zone. This witness has no personal knowledge of the conditions in the Russian zone. He has been incarcerated in Nurnberg for great many months and he cannot possible have any knowledge, and I feel that it has no place in the record of this case.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion to expunge the unsolicited comment of the witness mill be granted.
DR. GAWLIK(for defendants Volk and Bobermin): I would like to question this witness on behalf of Dr. Volk first of all, and a few preliminary questions first .....
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Witness, since when have you known Dr. Volk?
A. Roughly, since 1941.
Q. What were the tasks which Dr. Volk had as Bobermin's representative in the Office III A IV, and as liaison man between III A IV and III A?
A. He was head of the Offices and his tasks were legal matters. He also maintained liaison between the agencies in Berlin and Bobermin, where Bobermin was later on.
Q. What were the activities of Dr. Volk as the head of the legal Department, with Staff W?
A. He had to work on notary files and deal with the legal matters concerning DWB, and the branches in all matters of civil law. He had to advise them.
Q. Did Dr. Volk have the legal matters of all branches in his charge, or did some of them have legal experts of their own?
A. The larger branches had their own legal experts, and all legal matters could not be dealt with by the legal staff of Staff W -which was Dr. Volk.
Q. In particular, DEST, DAW, and DVA... did they have their own legal experts?
A. Yes, they had their own legal experts.
Q. Did the defendant Dr. Volk, therefore, work on behalf of the DEST or DAW at all?
A. No. He did not have anything to do there because they had their own legal experts.
Q. Witness, can you comment on the question whether Dr. Volk could have been aware of conditions within the various enterprises of DEST and DAW?
A. On the basis of his official activity these conditions could not reach him because he had nothing to do with the management of the enterprises, as he had no contact with the enterprises themselves. His work took place at an office desk.
Q. Did the defendant Dr. Volk have any right to issue orders towards the Office Chiefs of Office Group W?
A. No, he did not.
Q. Can you give us a reason for this answer, witness? Was it impossible for him because of his rank?
A. Well, first of all because of his official activities as the legal assistant, and, after all, I would issue the orders for enterprises, and I don't think his rank would come into this. He could not be concerned with these questions at all.
Q. Was Dr. Volk ever chief of Office Group W?
A. No.
Q. What were the tasks which were given to Dr. Volk in his capacity as your personal expert?
A. He assisted me in dealing with all private and official matters. He would work independently on all requests and other applications which would reach me because of my rank and position, to a large extent. Then he looked after my taxes, and all questions of tutelage.
Q. In that capacity did he have to do some work which was connected with your position as Main Office Chief, or Chief of Amt W, or were they all purely personal matters?
A. In that position he only worked on very personal matters. He was, so to speak, my private secretary ... really.
Q. Did the defendant Volk take part when the Office Chiefs would have conferences?
A. No.
Q. Is it possible, therefore, to charge defendant Volk with some knowledge about the Office Groups which you, yourself, had?
A. In no sense of the word. I never discussed these matters with Volk.
Q. Did volk's activity as your personal export ... did that claim most of his time?
A. Certainly, in the last two years.
Q. What were the results, that would arise, as far as Volk's activities with DWB were concerned?
A. Under those condition she could not deal very extensively with the concerns of DWB as he could have done between 1941 and 1942, but the work for DWB, after his connection had been discontinued, especially in the field of legal matters,became less and less. The main weight of work in his sphere shifted to his working on all matters which would reach me, and which I could not work on personally.
Q. Now,about concentration camps. Was it part of Volk'stask to establish, to maintain, or to look after, concentration camps and labor camps?
A. He had nothing to do with that.
Q. But Office Groups A and D, when concentrations camps were installed and set up, collaborated?
A. No.
Q. Did defendant Dr. Volk have anything to do with Office Groups A to D, as far as his official tasks were concerned?
A. No.
Q. Did Staff W have the task to help in purchasing sites for concentration camps, or find sites for concentration camps?
A. No, that was impossible because the purchasing of sites for concentration camps was a Reich matter, and these questions were worked on by the Legal Department of Office Group A, but not by the economic enterprises of Economic Group DWB.
Q. In 1942 to 1944 there were negotiations on the acquiring of sites in Stutthof, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. In what capacity did Volk participate in those negotiations?
A. As the business manager of the Settlement Ltd. (Gemeinnutzige Liedlungs GnBH).
Q. Did the negotiations carried out by Volk concern the purchase of land for the concentration camps?
A. No. These questions, as I said before, would not be dealt with by the legal expert of Staff W, but by the legal expert of Office A. I believe that office was called AV, as far as I can remember.
Q The Prosecution so far as the Stuffhof relations are concerned have called this a typical task for Staff-W, is that correct?
A No.
Q Now about the Litzmannstadt Ghetto I shall have to ask a few questions. What was the reason why the defendant Dr. Volk took part in these negotiations?
A Volk was to inform himself in the Litzmannstadt conditions, and to report to me in what legal manner the enterprise could be organized in the event of a transfer to a concentration camp later on. That was his task.
Q What was Volk's attitude when he reported to you on these negotiations?
A He advised me strongly to have anything to do with this matter.
Q Was this Litzmannstadt Ghetto transformed into a concentration camp?
A No.
Q Did it not take place because of Volk's attitude in the matter?
A No, because he did not have any influence on that matter. The decision came from Himmler.
Q The Prosecution has maintained that the defendant Dr. Volk in January 1944 had attempted to transform the Litzmannstadt Ghetto into a concentration camp in order to secure it for the Osti, is that correct?
A No, it would not have been sufficient to do so, because the documents show quite clearly that the order came from Himmler; for I sent Volk and Baier there as my representatives in order to obtain the information, and when they returned they both reported to me, and advised me strongly not to vote for the transformation.
Q Do you know anything about the fact whether or not Dr. Volk informed himself about conditions in concentration camps?
A I know nothing about that.
Q Do you know whether Dr. Volk ever visited a protective custody camp?
A I don't know.
Q Was Dr. Volk subject to the internal order not to enter a concentration camp?
A Of course. He had to have permission as anybody else did.
Q Did you at any time give Dr. Volk permission to visit a protective custody camp?
A If I remember now he did not ask me for one.
Q I shall have Document NO-1030 handed to you from Document Book 3, on page 74 of the German text. This is a letter from Mummenthey to SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Koegl. The letter is dated 1 July 1943. Did you give permission to Dr. Volk to enter the protective custody camp at Fiossenburg?
A I do not recall the instance, nor do I remember that he or Mummenthey informed me of this trip at the time.
Q Can you then comment on the question wherein that Dr. Volk had the facilities for actually entering a protective custody camp?
A The facilities would exist if he somehow or other got the permission.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: All persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats. Tribunal II is again in session.
EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Witness, did you tell the defendant Dr. Volk about the conditions which prevailed in the concentration camps?
A No.
Q Did the defendant Dr. Volk ever participate in the commander's conferences ?
A No.
Q Witness, I now hand you Document NO-2327, which is in German Document Book 3, page 122. It is an affidavit of Pister. He was the last commander of the concentration camp Buchenwald. In this affidavit Pister stated that the defendant Dr. Volk had participated in the concentration camp commander conferences. Will you please state to us your point of view with regard to this statement?
A In this case, the case of Volk, this can only be his participation in the final dinner at night, which took place in the evening before the conference was started. I am firmly convinced that Volk did not participate in any conference at Oranienburg.
Q I think you have already stated that these conferences took place at Oranienburg? Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Where did this dinner take place?
A Sometimes it took place in Berlin. Whenever it was held at Oranienburg, I always went out there myself.
JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q Who attended these dinners?
A Whenever the dinner was held at Berlin, then members of the WVHAwould also participate; but there were not certain members who participated. They were not previously invited. Whenever I went out to Oranienburg, I went by myself. I never took anybody along. The supper took place at the officers' mess.
Q Just tell me who attended the meetings that you are talking about. I don't care where it took place. Who attended it? Who was there ?
AA distinction must be made, your Honor, between the actual conferences where only official concentration camp matters were discussed. These conferences took place only at Oranienburg under the direction of Gluecks. This supper in the evening or the evening before, which took place several times at Berlin or at Oranienburg had nothing whatsoever to do with this conference. I always participated at the supper at Berlin as did members of the WVHA also because it was the supper which was served anyhow at the officers' mess. Of course, after such a long period of time has passed, I cannot remember the names of all the participants anymore. No special register of participants had been fixed. The supper was served at the officers' mess, and the commanders came there also. Therefore, it was not a restricted company.
Q I didn't ask you for any of that, witness. I just asked you to tell me who attended these meetings. Now, give me the best of your recollection as to the names of the people who were there; whether any of these defendants were there. That's what we are interested in.
A I cannot recall the names anymore. I know for certain that my adjutant was there.
Q Who was that? You don't remember his name either?
A My last adjutant was Schiller. I wanted to say that I changed my adjutants frequently; but my last adjutant was Hauptsturmfuehrer Schiller. He came along. Well, I cannot give you the individual names for the various occasions. But, as I have already said, supper -
Q Just a minute. I'm not asking you for the individual names on individual occasions. Give us the names of any of the defendants here in the dock that were there at any time, if any of them were there.
A I cannot give you those names. I do not know if any of the defendants participated in any of these suppers because for the most part they were not even in the house; the offices were distributed all over Berlin.
Only those persons participated who were in that building; they were the only ones who participated. In detail I cannot say anymore today. I cannot give you any names with certainty.
Q Of all of these meetings you can't give us the name of a single person who was there at any time except you adjutant?
A I cannot say today with certainty that this or that person participated. I am unable to do that.
Q You are unable to give us the name of anyone who was there on any occasion, not on any particular date but any occasion?
A I cannot name any of the defendants with certainty.
Q All right, go ahead.
Q. I now come to the medical experiments in the Euthanasia program which has been mentioned in the indictment. Did the defendant Dr. Volk participate in the planning or the execution of medical experiments, including the sterilization and castration in concentration camps?
A. He had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Q. Did the defendant Dr. Volk ever order the transfer of prisoners for this type of experiment?
A. No.
Q. Did the defendant Dr. Volk ever participate in the transfer of prisoners for this type of experiments?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever discuss such experiments with the defendant Dr. Volk?
A. No.
Q. You have already stated that these experiments were carried out under the utmost secrecy. Is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Did the defendant Dr. Volk belong to these circles of persons who had to have knowledge of these experiments?
A. No, he was not a member of that group.
Q. Did the defendant Dr. Volk have anything to do with the planning or the execution of the Euthanasia program?
A. He had nothing to do with it.
Q. Did you ever discuss the so-called Euthanasia program with the defendant Dr. Volk?
A. No.
Q. I now come to the extermination of the Jews which has been mentioned in the indictment. Did you ever discuss the extermination of the Jews with the defendant Dr. Volk?
Q. Did the members of Amtsgruppe W participate in the measures which were considered as a final solution of the Jewish question, and did they participate in that in any way?
A. The Amtsgruppe W had nothing to do with it.
Q. Did you ever discuss with the defendant Dr. Volk the Posen speech by Himmler?
A. No.
Q. Can you make a statement of whether the defendant Dr. Volk at the meeting at Posen obtained knowledge from another person who attended there of this speech of Himmler's?
A. I consider that as highly improbable.
Q. The Action Reinhardt has already been discussed here. Did the execution of the credit negotiations, with regard to the Action Reinhardt, come under the tasks and the activities of the defendant Dr. Volk?
A. No.
Q. Did the defendant Dr. Volk participate in anyway in these loan negotiations?
A. I once asked the question of negotiating a loan from the Reich with him, but only with regard to the legal aspects of this questions. I still remember that at the time he pointed out to me that the conclusion of an agreement without consulting the Reich Ministry of Finance was impossible, because I was unable to give credits and to make a loan in the same person. He did not have any other contacts with this question.
Q. In the course of this discussion, did you tell the defendant Dr. Volk that this was a credit from the Reinhardt Fund?
A. No. At that time it was till a general loan from the Reich. It was not fixed at that time what funds were to be used for this loan. That was shown later on. This became evident later.
Q. Have I understood you correctly, witness, that the conversation was as follows: You only asked the defendant Dr. Volk in general whether the Reich wanted to give the DWB concern a loan. Is that correct?
A. Yes, at the time I only thought of a loan from the Reich, and I wanted to achieve this by means of an agreement was what I discussed with Volk; nothing else was discussed at the time.
Q. On another occasion did you inform the defendant Dr. Volk about the action Reinhardt?
A. No, I had no reason to do so.
Q. You have already stated here, witness, that the Reinhardt action was classified as Top Secret. Is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Did the defendant Dr. Volk belong to the group of persons who were to be informed about this Action within the framework of the secrecy?
A. No, he was not to be informed of this Action.
Q. I then have several questions with regard to the complex of the Osti. Is it correct, witness, that the Osti was a purely independent company of the Reich?
A. Yes, that is correct. It was a company which was owned by the Reich.
Q. And who were the directors of the Osti?
A. The directors were Globocnik and Dr. Horn.
Q. Were these two persons members of the Amtsgruppe W?
A. No.
Q. Do you know, witness, who concluded the notary agreement regarding the Osti?
A. This contract was concluded at the time by Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Schneider.
Q. Did the defendant Dr. Volk participate in the conclusion of this contract? Did he participate in that in any way?
A. I do not think so.
Q. I now hand to you on this subject Document NO-1265. It is in Document Book 19, on page 9, and is Exhibit 482. I now submit this document to you, and I want to ask you the following question. Does this document show that the defendant Volk could have participated in the conclusion of this contract? Does it show that it could have participated in this contract? It is Document NO-1265-
MR. ROBBINS: I object to the question put to the witness. I think in the first place the document speaks for itself and it is a purely argumentative question.
DR. GAWLIK: May I say something in that respect, Your Honors. I have handed the witness this document in order to refresh his memory with regard to my last question.
THE PRESIDENT: The trouble is with your question. The Court can answer the question just as well as the witness by simply reading the document, we can read. We know what it says.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honors, I withdraw the question.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. In what capacity did the defendant Volk participate in the preliminary discussion with regard to the Osti?
A. I consulted Volk at the time with regard to the legal which were being discussed.
Q. Did the defendant Dr. Volk participate in the conference and in the discussions there?
A. The whole discussion was only very short. It lasted only for about a minute. I cannot recall if Volk participated in it because no fundamental questions were discussed at that time. I interrupted this discussion after a short time and I ordered Horn to first of all obtain information at Lublin about the conditions which prevailed there.
Q. Were copies of the questionnaire which Dr. Horn composed distributed to all the persons participating in this conference?
A. I do not know that anymore.
Q. On the occasion of this conference, were the aims, tasks and activities of the Osti discussed?
A. I have already stated that this conference lasted only a short time and that no fundamental discussions of the questions took place.
Q. I now come to the Count of the indictment referring to slave labor.
Was it part of the tasks of the defendant Dr. Volk to participate in the planning and execution of plans which were to serve the supply of factories with labor, and the assignment of concentration camp prisoners?
A. No, I carried out this work by myself.
Q. Did Staff W have any influence on the management of the plants which were under the DWB?
A. No.
Q. I now hand to you Document NO-1016. It is in Document Book II, on page 123. Does this memorandum show the relationship of Staff W to the plants affiliated with the DWB?
A. The document applies in no case 100 - because this memorandum only served as an orientation before circles which actually were not otherwise interested in the DWB.
Q. Did Defendant Dr. Volk compile this memorandum. Can you answer this question, please?
A. I can not say that exactly. It could also have been compiled by another member of Staff W. I might assume that it came from Dr. Hoffmann, but I do not know exactly.
Q. Who ordered the employment of prisoners in the plants which were affiliated with the DWB?
A. I did that.
Q. Who regulated the working conditions?
A. The plants' directors and foremen.
Q. Who was responsible for the billeting of these prisoners?
A. These prisoners were always billeted in the camp, and therefore the camp commander remained responsible for their billeting. That is to say, when the plants were located some distance away, special labor camps may have been established. However, at the moment I can not recall where this actually happened.
Q. Did you discuss with the defendant Dr. Volk if he made use of prisoners in the W plants?
A. Volk had nothing to do with the utilization of the prisoners in the W plants and, consequently, I did not discuss it with him. I only negotiated with Gluecks and Maurer about the allocation of labor.
Q. Can you make a statement on the question whether the defendant Volk ever obtained knowledge about any allocation of prisoners in the plants of the DWB, or if he ever handled these matters?
A. No, I am unable to make a statement on that question, I do not believe that he handled this work. However, I am not sure about it.
Q. Is it therefore correct to say, to describe the defendant Dr. Volk, as a master in the allocation of slave labor on the slave market?