Court No. II, Case No. 4.
MR. WALTON: As soon as the witness has had time to look it over, I shall go ahead with the cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Mr. Walton.
Q I shall ask the witness at this time whether or not Department I/5 of Main Department I had as part of its duties the allocation of prison inmate labor?
A I have already stated in the course of my direct examination that the task of this Main Department was the labor allocation of the inmates.
Q Then you admit that this is your signature to this document which you hold?
A In the document which I have my signature is not contained, but it is only stated, "Loerner." However, I assume that I have sent the document in question.
Q I call your further attention to this distribution list which appears below your signature, or below your name. Does the fact as shown here that 20 copies went to the Administrative Office of the Waffen-SS or 20 copies to the Waffen-SS Command, which included the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps, mean that at least one copy of this document was transmitted to each concentration camp?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Then your office of necessity had to maintain close liaison and close contact with the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps, did it not?
A I have already stated in my direct examination that because of this Main Department I/5 I was in contact with Gluecks and that it was in the very nature of this assignment that I/5 had to collaborate very closely with the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps. For this reason, the agreement was reached that from the Spring of 1941 on this Main Department was to be directly subordinate to the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps.
Q Now to which Main Department do you refer?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A I refer to Main Department I/5, the allocation of inmates.
Q But the Main Department I/5 was still under your supervision and control, was it not?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Now, by calling your attention to paragraph 1 of this document it states that concentration camp labor were employed both in the SS Economic Enterprises and also privately owned enterprises, is that not right?
A What document are you referring to now.
Q I have reference to the document which is your letter under date of 17 July 1940.
THE PRESIDENT: The one in your hand.
WITNESS: Yes, yes.
Q To renew my question. In paragraph 1 of that document it appears that concentration camp labor was used in SS owned Economic Enterprises and the prison camp inmates were also leased to privately owned enterprises, is not that right?
A Yes, that is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess, Mr. Walton.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess until 1:45.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 19 June 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. WALTON: The Prosecution at this time desires to make a brief statement in that the request of the Honorable Tribunal was delivered to the Prosecution over the dinner hour, and every effort will be made to speed up the cross examination as is humanly possible in conformity with the safety to the Prosecution's case.
BY MR. WALTON:
Q Witness, prior to the noon recess you were asked by the Prosecution that as early as July of 1940 the prisoners of concentration camps were used for economic enterprises, is that correct?
A From May 1940 - I did not say that. I only confirmed that for the enterprises listed in this letter under paragraph I and the State enterprises, that is correct, I confirmed that.
Q Very well. I shall ask you in the light of the first paragraph of the Document NO-3666, which you now hold, whether or not concentration camp labor was used or employed by the SS-Enterprises?
A Well, that is correct, yes, it is.
Q From your memory, are you able at this time to state what kind, or what type of enterprises of the SS was interested in as of July 1940?
A Well, you can see that from the third paragraph of this document. In this part exactly is listed in whole economic enterprises, inmate labor was employed.
Q I should like for the witness to be more specific as to the third part of the document. That refers to distribution list on page 2 of the original ---
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Page 3 very clearly indicates what he is referring to.
MR. WALTON: I am sorry.
BY MR. WALTON:
Q Then in paragraph 3 on page 3 of the list is a representative of the SS-Enterprises at this particular time, is that correct?
A Well, of what part do you mean, now on page 3, the paragraph there.
Q The Prosecution makes reference to the list on the last page of the document which ---
A Yes, yes, I see.
Q All right. Those enterprises in paragraph 3 thereof are SS-enterprises, are they not?
A Yes, those are enterprises of the DEST, G.M.B.H. that is listed, that is correct.
Q Now also at this particular time there was a lease system, or a system whereby concentration camp inmates were allotted to privated enterprises, were they not?
A Well, you can see from the document that inmates also were employed with private enterprises. However, I can not imagine that a large number of inmates was involved here. Today, of course, I can no longer recall how many inmates there are. I must refer to my testimony on direct examination where I stated that I myself did not deal too much with the main tasks of the Main Department 1-V, because all of this work would only be done by very close cooperation with the Inspectorate of the concentration camp, and from Section five of this document it becomes clear that already the time the Main Department 1-V maintained a department with the Inspectorate of the concentration camp, and this proves my assertion that this work in this field was not possible to be carried out by the Main Department of Construction.
Furthermore, Section 6 of the document shows that this Main Department at that time was only being erected because it shows here that only in three concentration camps there were labor assignment officials.
Q: Since you are unable at this time to recall any private enterprises to whom convicts were leased I will ask you if you remember the type of work in which those private concerns were engaged that would necessitate them requesting concentration camp labor?
A: I can't tell you this either. Before I saw these documents here in Nurnberg I did not recall and I did not know whether at that time inmates were employed in private industries and therefore I can today only say what I see from the documents. From my own knowledge I cannot give you any details with regard to these matters.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Mr. Walton, let me ask a question.
MR. WALTON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Who gave you authority to issue this order? Document 3666?
A: That was the Chief of the Main Office Budget and Construction, Pohl.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: And the second paragraph: "The blue compilation form for prisoner allocation is to be used for the daily registration". What does that mean? The second paragraph of the document reads as follows: "The blue compilation for prisoner allocation is to be used for the daily registration." What does that mean?"
A: Well, this paragraph refers to a previous decree which I can no longer recall. I suppose there is some kind of a form on which the inmates are listed as specialized labor and unskilled labor. I couldn't tell you more about that.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Well, you wrote this. Don't you know what you meant by saying that?
A: No, I didn't write it, your Honor. My name is only below the document.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: I don't mean you wrote it out. You issued it. Don't you know what you meant by an order which you issued?
A: If your Honor please, probably at that time I knew it but today after seven years I really cannot tell you any more what it was.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Well, where were these daily forms to be returned? To your office?
A: No, these reports -- well, they are not really reports. They are lists of all the specialized labor and unskilled labor which were listed with the labor assignment leader in the camp. The lists remained there and were not sent on.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: So you remember now that the lists that were made stayed in the camp -- the daily registration?
A: Well, I think that's the way it was. Whether it was like that in reality I cannot tell you to the best of the world but I think that these registration lists remained in the camp.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Now, after you gave this order and gave the rules and regulations as to the allocation of the prison camp labor what, if anything, did you do in regard to seeing how this labor was allocated? What kind of work they had to do and how they were treated in their work?
A: No. I have already explained in my direct examination that I could not deal with this Main Department 1-5 very much and that therefore I proposed that this Main Department be incorporated in the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camp and that was one of the main reasons why this transfer, first the unofficial and then the official transfer to the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camp was carried out and approved by Himmler. At that time I had so much work with the establishment of the administration of the Waffen-SS that I could not at that time deal also with these tasks which were not in line with my usual tasks. After all, I had no knowledge at all in all of these matters and therefore I did not carry out that work but rather Burboeck together with Gluecks carried out the work.
It's obvious that I signed one or the other of the decrees but that doesn't prove that I really had the direction of this Main Department and carried it out.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: No. Nobody else signed it except you, did they?
A: This decree I signed; that's true.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: After you issued this decree you said you did nothing further in regard to seeing what happened to the labor after you allocated it by this order?
A: Once the labor assignment was concluded -- well, it's correct I no longer took an interest.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: That's all.
BY MR. WALTON:
Q: Witness, on the distribution list which is just under your signature or your name there appears that the clothing factory at Dachau received a total of five copies. Was the clothing factory at Dachau at this time employing the concentration camp labor for the second shift which you testified in direct examination?
A: The clothing factory at Dachau apart from the testing enterprises which I described in the direct examination and in which civilian workers were only employed at that time -- this clothing work had also a magazine in Dachau and in this magazine at Dachau inmates were employed.
Q: By the term "magazine" to mean a magazine for explosives and shells and implements of war?
A: No, when I speak of "magazine" I meant a warehouse for clothing. It had nothing whatsoever to do with powder and ammunitions. It was clothing and there they stored the clothes in their warehouse.
Q: Then there was concentration camp labor employed in the clothing warehouse for the Waffen-SS at Dachau?
A: To this clothing warehouse inmates were sent from the concentration camp at Dachau; that's correct.
Q: Do you recall now the approximate number of the crew of concentration camp inmates in the clothing warehouse at Dachau at any time?
A: Well, that is, of course, very difficult for me to give you any figure today. That may have been 30 or 40 but I couldn't give you an exact figure.
Q: Now, concerning once more the private enterprises or private concerns who employed prison-camp labor, do you recall the method by which the funds were paid into the Waffen-SS?
A: Well, I can no longer remember these details today and testify under oath. Anyhow, at that time already the amount which was paid for the work of the inmates were forwarded to the Reich. How and in what manner that was done I couldn't tell you today.
Q: Very well. Did the Waffen-SS retain any of these funds for its own treasury?
A: No. At least I don't know anything about it.
Q: Did the Waffen-SS ever retain any funds from its own economic enterprises worked by concentration camp labor?
A: I didn't quite get your question. I am sorry. Whether the Waffen-SS retained funds?
Q. I will re-phrase the question. Did at all times, from all sources, did the Waffen SS turn over to the Reich all funds it received?
A. Yes, of course, insofar as the Reich had a right to these funds, of course the sums had to be forwarded to the Reich.
Q. You use the phrase "insofar as the Reich had a right to these funds." Witness, I am trying to determine from you whether any of the money listed as income from the economic enterprises of the Waffen SS, from the private concerns paid over to the Waffen SS for the use of concentration camp labor, or from any source whatsoever--were any of these funds retained for the Waffen SS treasury, or did every pfennig so obtained go to the Reich by transfer?
A. Well, the transfer to the Reich, of course, was not made by a bank transfer, but by booking simply on the income page of the book. However, I cannot remember that any funds were ever retained; anyhow, I couldn't tel you anything about such occurrences.
Q. Where did the Waffen SS obtain its money to pay its bills and its cost of operation?
A. The Waffen SS received its funds from the Reich.
Q. Since this was only a book transfer, is it not true that these funds going into the Waffen SS were merely credited on the books as having been transferred to the Reich; and, as a matter of fact, the Waffen SS drew against these funds for its expenses?
A. No, counsel, that is not the way it is. In accordance with the regulations of the Reich budget, al income which goes to the Reich has to be handed over to the Reich treasury, and, therefore, cannot be used for its expenses, but has to be turned in, actually turned in. The money which was required for the expenses was transferred to us upon request by the Reich treasury.
Q. Then, by turning in these funds you built up a credit, or an amount of money, which could be ear-marked or returned to you for construction; is that not right?
A. No, that is not right. The expenses were expended in no way from the income. Those were two quite separate fields which had nothing to do with each other.
MR. WALTON: May it please the Tribunal, the Prosecution at this time offers for identification Document No-3698, and asks that it be marked Prosecution's Exhibit 556; and, subject to proper objections by the Defense, reserves the right to have it formally introduced into evidence at a later time.
THE PRESIDENT: While this is being distributed, will you let us see the original of the previous Exhibit 555?
MR. WALTON: Apparently it is not at the Prosecution's table. I believe that it was turned in to the Secretary General.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
BY MR. WALTON:
Q. The defendant't attention is directed to the signature on this document. Do you have the original there?
A. No, I don't have it.
Q. Then I will ask you if an order or a letter on this subject, and in the language expressed, could have been written by you?
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Do you want to find out if he signed this letter?
MR. WALTON: Yes.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Why not ask him that directly?
MR. WALTON: If that were the case he would have said--the answer to that could be: I couldn't tell you anything unless I saw the original document.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Ask him if he is familiar with this document; if it has been brought to his attention; if he has ever seen it, or if he dictated it.
MR. WALTON: Very good.
Q. The document, which is now before you, is a letter on the subject of branch offices of the Main Office Budget and Buildings for pri soner allocation; is it not?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. It is dated approximately--it is dated on 14th September 1940.
A. 23--no; 14th, yes, that is quite right.
Q. Did you sign a letter on this subject at approximately the same date--to the best of your recollection and belief?
A. Well, Prosecution Counsel, after all, it is now seven years ago; and it is quite impossible--probably at that time I signed twenty to thirty letters a day; it is quite impossible for me to say.
THE PRESIDENT: Don't argue with the Prosecutor. Do you remember signing this order--this letter?
A. I can't remember that today.
Q. Now, I will ask you whether or not the subject of a representative of your office to be placed in each concentration camp had not been discussed as a problem which had to be met; and this order established a representative of your office in each concentration camp for the purpose of allocation of prisoner labor. Do you remember a prison allocation officer being placed by your department in each concentration camp?
A. Yes, it is correct, but I never denied that. The Main Department I/5, as can be seen from the proceedings, had a representative for labor allocation of inmates in every camp, and this letter here only regulates the economic coordination under these agencies in the camps.
Q. This prison allocation officer was still under the control of your department in Budget and Constructions, was he not?
A. Yes, it was under the Main Department I/5, and, therefore, under the Main Department Budget and Buildings.
Q. The Prosecution at this time offers for identification Document NO-3654, and asks that it be marked Prosecution's Exhibit 557; and, subject to proper objections by the Defense, reserves the right of its formal introduction into evidence at a later time.
Witness, this document is an order from the Main Office of Budget and Buildings, on the subject of payment for concentration camp labor, and it is dated 11 July, 1940 is it not?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. As Chief of Main Department I, your department was interested in the payment for the use of prisoner labor; is that not correct?
A. From the tasks of the Main Division I/5, in the Main Office I, yes, that can be derived from it.
Q. Now, this document shows the SS enterprises obtained prison inmate labor at a cheaper, or lessor rate, than did the enterprises not SS owned; does it not?
A. Yes, one can see from the document that in SS enterprises they had to pay thirty pfennigs per person with the approval of the Minister for finance; and that in privately owned enterprises the tariffs were different from one case to another.
Q. Did any reports of payment for prison labor in SS enterprises come to your office or to one of the subsections in your department?
A What kind of reports do you refer to, counsel?
Q. The reports of income from the use of prisoner labor.
A. Well, I suppose so, because the Main Department I/I dealt with these matters and therefore I assume that these registrations concerning the amount of the indemnifications came into the Office I/I.
Q. Then at any time it was possible for you to know the approximate figure of income which the Waffen-SS or the Reich Treasury enjoyed from the allocation of prisoner labor, was it not?
A Well, yes, that's quite correct.
Q. Now, on page 2 of this same document I'd like to cal your attention to the distribution list which is on the left-hand side of the page and the number of copies which are on the right-hand side. This distribution list is practically the same as Document 3666 about which you testified some time ago, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. Then, if this document concerns prison camp labor, the reason that the clothing factory at Dachau received five copies was because in the warehouse you worked prison camp labor; is that so?
A. Well, yes, that's what I said already. In the clothing factory in Dachau innate labor was employed.
Q. Then when it says garment factory, Dachau, it does not mean where clothes were manufactured, but it should have meant garment warehouse, Dachau; is that right?
A. Well, Mr. Prosecutor, the official designation of this agency was Bekleidungswerk, clothing plant of the Waffen-SS, Dachau, and this clothing factory had also ready-made enterprises. I have already described that in my testimony, the so-called testing enterprises, but in these enterprises there were no inmates, but civilian workers. The inmates were only in the warehouse where the ready-made garments for the the troops were stocked until they were delivered.
Q. It was also necessary for you to inform yourself personally on how much per day per inmate these prisoners had to be paid out of the funds aloted to your warehouse in Dachau; was it not?
A. The clothing factory in Dachau had no income because it was a Reich financed state institution. Therefore, they had no income. It had a budget from which its expenses were paid. As far as these enterprises were concerned where the Reich employed inmates, there was no payment in cash of the inmates but only a booking because, after all, the money went from the Reich to the Reich. In other words, from the Reich Treasury back into the Reich treasury, and therefore there was only a booking compensation and not a cash payment.
Q. Are you trying to say, witness, that the five copies which went to the garment factory, Dachau, were sent merely for information; that this factory did not have to pay 30 pfennigs per day per man for the use of their labor?
A. Well, of course, there they had to book at least 30 pfennigs per inmate for the employment of labor. That was for the expenses of the camp as expense from the Reich budget at the same time as income to the Reich budget for employment of labor.
Q. The effect was that certain enterprises, Reich owned, received free concentration camp labor, did they not?
A. Well, I just said that this was arranged by booking. It was entered in the income of the Reich as paument for the inmates who were employed in the Reich factories, but of course, it was not paid in cash because that would have been a nonsense if the Reich had paid to the Reich, but in the income of the Reich this money was shown.
THE PRESIDENT: We have decided it was a "wash" transaction.
MR. WALTON: My question was whether the effect was that the Reich owned enterprise received free concentration camp labor. If I am in order, I move that the answer of the witness on the stand be stricken as non-responsive to the question.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I think it was responsive. The meaning that I got was that there was no actual transfer of cash but merely counter book entries, a "wash" transaction between the Reich and the SS.
MR. WALTON: Very well, sir, if the Tribunal is satisfied that the answer is to the effect that the Reich got free labor, that's all I wanted.
THE PRESIDENT: We are.
MR. WALTON: The prosecution next offers for identification Document No. 3658, and asks that it be marked prosecution exhibit 558 and subject to proper objection by the defense, reserves the right of its formal introduction in evidence at a later time.
Q. (By Mr. Walton) Now, witness, this document is a formal notice from the representative of your Main Department I/5, the Allocation Officer at Buchenwald, to the Camp Commandant notifying him that from October 1 of 1940 there would be no more free prisoner Labor furnished to the SS enterprises or offices in the camp, but that on the contrary, a charge of 30 pfennigs per man per day-
THE PRESIDENT: Reichsmarks, not pfennigs, reichsmarks, isn't it?
MR. WALTON: Sir, it's dash point thirty.
THE PRESIDENT: I always forget the decimal.
Q. (By Mr. Walton) (Cont'd)--a charge of 30 pfennigs per man per day would be charged the offices which he names in his notice; is that right?
A. Well, this is just the procedure I have tried to explain a while ago; that is, this payment of the Reich to the Reich and all these agencies were Reich agencies and the Reich Finance Ministry probably at that time book compensation would take place, in order to have the total income for inmate labor on the asset side of the Reich Treasury book and that therefore the Reich Finance Minister wanted to know exactly how much he would receive in total for the inmate labor, and therefore this decree was issued according to which even the Reich agencies had to book and had to pay for the labor assignment of inmates.
MR. WALTON: The witness is anticipating a bit the questions which he thinks I shall ask him.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, he is right, isn't he?
MR. WALTON: No sir, I am sorry.
THE PRESIDENT: Doesn't this letter indicate that this is merely a bookkeeping method of recording a hidden cost item?
MR. WALTON: It does on its face, Your Honor, but I intend to go a little bit aside from it as to the reasons for it.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
Q. (By Mr. Walton) Are you acquainted with the prison labor allocation branch office head in Buchenwald in 1940; do you remember who he was?
A. The labor assignment leader at Buchenwald was Untersturmfuehrer Grimm as can be seen from the document.
Q. Yes, Now, SS Untersturmfuehrer Grimm would render regular reports to his office in Berlin, I/5, would he not?
A. Yes.
Q. And I/5 would periodically render to you, as head of the whole department, periodic reports either oral or written; is that right?
A. Well, I already explained in my direct examination that Burboeck came to see me every four and six weeks and reported to me about the most important occurrences. In the meantime he worked with the inspectorate of the concentration camps at Oranienburg because only this close cooperation between Burboeck and Gluecks made it possible to carry out the main task of the Department I/5.
Q. You did not then interest yourself in any matters such as the total receipts over a given period of time for prison allocation labor as come through I/5?
A. Well, concerning these incomings of labor assignment for inmates, Burboeck certainly informed me.
Q. Do you recollect any complaints or any talk concerning this increased charge for prison camp labor as of October 1940?
A. No, I can't recall that.
Q. Do you know if any movement was on foot to repeal the Pohl order or to get Pohl to repeal his order charging 30 pfennigs per man per day for prison camp labor?
A. No, I don't know anything about that.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Then let me call your attention to a document which the Prosecution at this time offers for identification, Document NO-3657, and asks that it be marked Prosecution's Exhibit 559 and subject to proper objection by the Defense reserves the right of formal introduction into evidence at a later time.
Now this document quotes a letter or a part of a letter from the Main Department 1/5 to the Main Office of Budget and Construction, and that is the letter referred to of 24 October 1940. Now then this letter purports to exempt from the payment of these charges for prison camp certain designated departments or offices using prison camp labor. Is that not right?
A I can't derive from the document that offices who used concentration camp labor should not pay. I only can take it from the letter that the concentration camps themselves for the inmates used in the internal services of the concentration camp would not have to pay.
Q That is a point about which we should like more information. What was the difference between economic enterprises of the SS in connection with concentration camps and the term "internal business enterprises" as set forth in this letter?
A When speaking of internal business enterprises of the KL, the concentration camps, if I remember, this meant the internal work shops for repairing the inmates' clothing like shoemakers, tailors who repaired the clothes of the inmates; but here it was not possible to have a big accounting for it in order to make them pay for the inmates who worked on those internal jobs. That, I think, was the reason for this decree.
Q And the success of the internal business enterprises in the concentration camp was the basis or the reason why the SS branched out into its economic enterprises, is that not true?
A I am sorry; I didn't quite get that. It didn't come through.
Q The success of the internal enterprises as designated in this Court No. II, Case No. 4.letter and about which you have testified was the real reason why the Office of Building and Construction, and later the WVHA, branched out into more and more economic enterprises which used a cheap and profitable labor, is that not true?
A Well, the establishment of SS economic enterprises has nothing to do whatsoever with the internal work shops. These were more repair shops for repairing the clothing. In every barracks they existed as well as in the concentration camps.
MR. WALTON: May it please the Tribunal, it has just been discovered that out of the copy in German which the witness now has three very important words have been omitted and the sentence as it now stands in German makes very little, if any, sense; and, therefore, his testimony is correct insofar as he can read it, but he had not all of the -
THE PRESIDENT: -- German.
MR. WALTON: -- contents as in the original document.
THE PRESIDENT: The original letter.
MR. WALTON: I Have a photostat, Sir. I move that the photostat be placed in his hands.
THE PRESIDENT: Surely, of course.
MR. WALTON: And that he be allowed to testify concerning that.
BY MR. WALTON:
Q Witness, since a photostat of the original document is in your hands of 3657, you can see that it concerns among other things the internal business enterprises of the camp. With this additional information, do you wish to testify more or will you stand on your original testimony as to the difference between economic enterprises and internal business enterprises insofar as the concentration camp was concerned?
A I have nothing to add to my statements.
MR. WALTON: The Prosecution is through with that document, Sir, but I felt it necessary to turn it over to him. The Prosecution at Court No. II, Case No. 4.this time offers for identification Document NO-3699, and asks that it be marked Prosecution's Exhibit 560, and subject to proper objection by the Defense reserves the right of formal introduction into evidence at a later time.
Since that document is not here, the Prosecution withdraws its offer of Document NO-3699, and desires at this time to offer for identification Document 3667 and asks that it be marked Prosecution's Exhibit 560, and subject to proper objection by the Defense reserves the right of its formal introduction into evidence at a later time.
BY MR. WALTON:
Q Witness, the document which you now hold is a memorandum directed to the offices of the Main Office of Budget and Buildings in the concentration camps of Dachau, Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen, Mauthausen, Neuengamme and Auschwitz on the subject of compensation for prisoner labor. Can you tell from the document which you have who issued this memorandum?
A The director of the Main Department, Burboeck, issued the document.
Q Was this document issued on your own responsibility or in conformance with the general policy for that particular section of your department?
A The latter is true.
Q It was issued, then, in conformity with the general policy of your department?
A Yes, that's right.
THE PRESIDENT: Who issued the letter, please?
MR. WALTON: The witness testified that the head of Main Department 1/5, a man by the name of Burboeck, is the actual author of the document.
BY MR. WALTON:
Q Now will you explain in paragraph 1 why it was necessary according to your own knowledge of affairs at that time to issue retro Court No. II, Case No. 4.active supplementary demand vouchers to November 1, 1940, for reporting by all economic enterprises of the SS where prisoners were employed.