Q. I think we know the letter.
A. It is connected with Document NO-2117 in Document Book No. IV.
Q. And that is Hans Loerner's letter?
A. It is a letter from Hans Loerner, yes, that is correct.
Q. Now, witness, can you tell us briefly what your official contacts with Amtsgruppe A were?
A. I did not have any official business contact with Office Group A. If the DWB was to clear up the financial matters, the 300,000 marks were to be repaid. I don't know if you can call this any official contact.
Q. I am passing on to another complex now, leaving the Stutthof matter. In general, what was the relationship between the DWB and Amtsgruppe A, if any?
A. The relationship between Office Group A and the Economic Enterprises was above all in the personnel office. The WVHA and the Waffen SS, as was also done in my case, wanted to have efficient collaborators in the Waffen SS and the chief of the office then received the order from Pohl to assign a particular person to work with the DWB. He himself could not decide about that. The Chief of Office A-V did not want to replace any people because he said these were responsible groups and he wanted to have them at the front. Pohl, however, then ordered them and then he worked the cirriculum vitae so that the man in personnel there had to see he was going to work with the DWB and that is the main contact. Otherwise, you will have to give me various points of reference if you want to know any more about the matter.
Q. Well, let's take a specific case then. Will you turn to Document Book XIX, to page 15 in the German text, page 12 in the English, to Exhibit 483, NO-1226. These documents concern the Reinhardt Fund. You have seen this document before, haven't you, a loan from the Reinhardt Fund from Dr. Hohberg?
A. Yes
Q. Do you recall that your initials are on this document?
A. I saw this document. It is not countersigned in the English document book. I guess my initials were not put on the English version. It should be "DV".
JUDGE PHILLIPS: What page is that, Mr. Robbins?
MR. ROBBINS: It is page 12 in Book XIX.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Just to make certain, let me show you No. 483, the photostatic copy, and ask you if this is your initials on that letter?
A. Yes, I have already stated I knew about the matter.
Q. And let me show you the next document concerning the financing of the OSTI, Exhibit No. 484, and ask you if this is your initials on this document. On this letter to Mellmer, on page 15 of the English book, dated 13 August 1943.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, will you tell us what part you had in this matter?
A. It is stated by the first document that Dr. Wenner and Dr. Hohberg went to see Gruppenfuehrer Frank, and they discussed the financial matter. Just what matter was concerned here I cannot even tell you today, because it never came to my knowledge. Gruppenfuehrer Frank stated that the money which had been given the DWB by the Reinhardt Fund was not effected by the matter. I don't know any more about it. This letter was brought to my attention by Dr. Hohberg, and then I countersigned it with my initials.
Q. Did you talk to anybody about it?
A. I don't know that any more today. I acknowledged the letter, and so far as that letter was concerned, that matter was settled for me, because it had nothing to do with my field of work.
Q. You don't recall talking to Dr. Hohberg about it?
A. I cannot recall that any more today.
Q. And is it your testimony today that you did not know about the source of this Reinhardt Fund?
A. No, I don't know about it. With regard to the second letter, I want to say that it was given to me by Baier, and Dr. Wenner had a discussion with Hauptsturmfuehrer Mellmer. Dr. Wenner then made a report to Baier and, since Dr. Wenner had to go away on a trip, Baier probably said, "Dr. Volk, will you kindly and quickly formulate this matter?" and I formulated this letter, and turned it over to Hauptsturmfuehrer Mellmer, because it was within his field of competence. It was stated here, after a discussion between Wenner and Dr. Mellmer, that this was not part of my field of task, and Wenner gave it to me and told me to formulate the matter, and that is exactly what I did, and I put my initials down at the bottom of the page to show that was the order of the letter.
Q. Did you talk to Mellmer at any time?
A. I said hello but otherwise I did not have any contact with him at all. In any case I cannot remember having had any with him.
Q. You did not discuss the financing of the OSTI, or the Reinhardt Fund, in any way with him?
A. I did not so far as I can recall.
Q. And is it your testimony that you did not hear at any time about the utilization of clothing in the East?
A. I cannot recall that.
Q. You did not hear about the utilization of gold teeth and spectacles?
A. No.
Q. You did not hear about Vogt's auditing report which he made after going to the East?
A. No.
Q. Witness, coming to another matter, I want to show you another document and ask you if you can identify this.
A. Yes.
Q. You have seen this document before?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Will you tell me who prepared it?
A. I assume that Baier did or it may have been an expert who was working for Baier.
Q. And does this correctly state your work domain under paragraph one of the document as a legal expert in Staff W?
A. No, it does not.
Q. In what respect does it not?
A. This was only a draft in its specification of the fields of work.
Q. That does not answer my question.
A. It was only a draft of the business distribution plan, and I objected to this distribution plan.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute.
THE WITNESS: To Baier.
THE PRESIDENT: Answer the question, witness. Does paragraph one correctly define the duties that you performed? Never mind whether you objected to it, but just answer the question.
THE WITNESS: Yes, with the exception of the official deputizing for the Chief W.
Q. And everything else is correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And during recess will you look over the rest of the document and tell me whether the other items in the document are correct. Will you tell me now for what purposes this document was prepared?
A. A business distribution plan was to be established.
Q. What do you mean by that, "a business distribution plan"?
A. Baier wanted to specify the field of work which the individual person would have to deal with in Staff W.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it is a job description report, isn't it? It describes the jobs of the different people in Staff W?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. And was this circulated at the office?
A. No.
Q. Do you know what happened to it? What happened to the job description?
A. I don't know. In any case I cannot recall it.
Q. You don't know that it was sent out under Baier's signature, and circulated in the offices, is that right?
A. I cannot remember that.
THE PRESIDENT: We'll take a recess for fifteen minutes.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. VON STEIN (Counsel for the defendant Eirenschmalz): May it please the Court, I have this request to make. When the defendant Eirenschmalz was examined by the prosecution on the witness stand, an affidavit was submitted by the prosecution which was followed up by another affidavit later on, and further affidavits were promised. At that time I asked the Court that either I should be allowed to crossexamine the witness of the prosecution or else submit a counter-affidavit. Having discussed this matter with my client, I have reached this result: The incriminating facts were concerned only with the years before the war, and in my opinion it therefore would be adequate for me to submit a counter-affidavit. I have made several applications that I would be allowed to discuss it with the witness. The prosecution, however, felt that I should ask this witness here to be cross-examined, for which reasons they made objections. I have just discussed the matter with Mr. Robbins and he told me I was to put this matter before the Court. However, if the Court would give me permission to take down a counter-affidavit, Mr. Robbins would prefer it if I were to cross-examine the witness here. I told him that this would be agreeable to me if I were given the opportunity of discussing the matter with the witness beforehand, so that we are all at equal terms. Mr. Robbins is of the opinion that this is impossible. I therefore want only to take down a counter-affidavit. I should be grateful for the Court's ruling.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is the-- What is the name of the witness. Dr. von Stein?
DR. VON STEIN: Hubert Karl.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, I think there are special circumstances in this case. This is the only instance in which the prosecution has stood an objection of the defense talking to a witness. In the first place Hubert Karl is a prosecution witness. We went to a good deal of trouble to find someone who was familiar with the construction program of the WVHA and its predecessors, and he's given two affidavits which we have made available to the defense in advance rather than to call him as a rebuttal witness in order to save time.
And we are eager to have him cross-examined here in open court on his affidavit. As to the defense attorneys taking affidavits from Karl, we would have no objection to that except that there are about 8 or 9 defense attorneys who have requested interrogations of Karl, and with our limited number of interrogators, it would mean that it would tie up our interrogators for the next week or two just sitting in on interrogations of Hubert Karl.
I think it would save time all around to have him brought here into court. Each attorney, as I said, and there are about 8 who have filed requests to interrogate him, and if each attorney schedules two or three interrogations it takes up a lot of time. Furthermore, I think it is rather unusual that the opposition be given an opportunity to talk to a prosecution witness before he is cross-examined. The prosecution doesn't talk to defense witnesses before they are cross-examined, and I just can't see that there is any right for the defense counsel to talk to a prosecution witness before he is cross-examined on the evidence that he has given. In addition to that, as I say, it would be extremely inconvenient for the prosecution. The Court is aware that the prosecution has the right to sit in on the interrogations that are granted to the defense counsel. As a practical matter, it would be impossible for us to do so because of the large number of interrogations requested.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, another reason in favor of the witness being brought to court rather than submitting affidavits is that it gives the Tribunal an opportunity to ask questions of the witness which may not have been covered in the affidavit. That frequently happens that we have questions that interest us that are not covered by an affidavit. Just a minute, please.
Dr. von Stein, if this witness had been produced in court by the prosecution, you would have been obliged to go ahead and cross-examine without any private questioning of the witness. I don't see that the situation is any different now. And therefore your request that you be permitted to interrogate the witness at length, you and a number of your colleagues, and then to cross-examine, and then to prepare an affidavit seems unreasonable.
The controlling thing here, however, is that the Tribunal is interested in seeing this witness. His credibility before us is to be determined, and we will doubtless have a number of questions to ask him ourselves which we can't do unless he is produced in court.
Therefore, the Tribunal orders that he be produced upon your request for cross examination by you and other defense counsel, but without the opportunity for previous interrogation before his appearance in court.
DR. VON STEIN (Counsel for defendant Eirenschmalz): May it please the Court, may I put just one question? Will this witness be heard only about the contents of the two affidavits, or will he be asked other questions outside the contents of the affidavits?
THE PRESIDENT: He may be asked any questions that have to do with the indictment by either the prosecution or defense. He may be questioned about any relevant material matter.
DR. VON STEIN: May it please the Court, I feel in that case that questions might arise which I will not be able to put to him without consulting my client first. I am in a somewhat difficult situation there. It is quite possible that the prosecution, who have already interviewed the witness, will touch on new questions without my being able to do anything about it because I haven't consulted with my client about it.
THE PRESIDENT: No, the Tribunal will see to it that you are not handicapped or jeopardized in that respect. If you want time to consult with your client and then to cross-examine further, of course you may have it.
DR. VON STEIN: Mr. President, has a special time been arranged actually for the cross examination?
THE PRESIDENT: No, not yet; no time has been set.
DR. VON STEIN: But the time will be decided by the Court? Or do I have to file a new application?
THE PRESIDENT: No, you don't need to file a new application; permission has already been granted. I suppose, Mr. Robbins, the logical time would be after the last defendant has testified in his own behalf?
MR. ROBBINS: I think so, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You don't need any further authority or permission. It has been granted.
DR. VON STEIN: Thank you very much, Your Honor.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Have you had an opportunity to look at NO-3861, which is the job description and which has been marked as Prosecution Exhibit 618?
THE PRESIDENT: No, no, 619. 3831, Exhibit 619.
MR. ROBBINS: Correction. 619.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
A. Yes.
Q. Will you point out to us in what respects, if any, this job description is incorrect?
A. This specification, so to speak, castrated me, so to say, legally for the simple reason that I was too deeply involved in the duties as Pohl's personal assistant. It was difficult to reach me and my legal sphere of work was neglected. Therefore, law was, in actual fact, taken away from me, and although it says up on top. "Taking care of difficult legal matters," but lower down it says that all work on all legal matters connected with the DWB was up to Dr. Hoffmann. It did say up on top "Taking care of difficult legal matters concerning management of the concern and handling of basic legal problems of the individual enterprises." Such enterprises which had their own legal departments did not hand legal matters which were to be handled to the top company. The reason for that was that the legal experts in the subsidiary companies did not want to lost prestige with their office chiefs who were frequently legal experts themselves. For that reason the office chief, of course, said, "Surely you can do that yourself. You don't have to worry Dr. Volk or Dr. Hoffmann about that."
Only when the business distribution plan which has become part of our documents here, was it to become compulsory for the subsidiary companies; but for me - so that the pill would be sweetened - I was called the deputy of chief W, which I was before. The Chief W was deputized for by me because I was the senior expert in the department. I deputized only when he was absent. I simply looked to it that the office routine went on, but I did not deputize for him in his pragmatic duties, and Pohl actually did not want me to.
Q. Now, witness, I want to go on to another matter. Is it your testimony that you knew nothing about medical experiments in concentration camps?
A. I did not know anything about the concentration camp ones.
Q. What kind of medical experiments did you hear about?
A. If you regard the experiment or the work done in the laboratory of Dr. Vaernet of the German Drug Company G.m.b.H. as experiment, then I am bound to admit that I knew about that. But I did not know that he also made experiments in concentration camps.
Q. You didn't see a letter by Dr. Vaernet in August 1944 - specifically the 31st of August 1944 - saying that experiments would be carried out in concentration camp Buchenwald? You don't recall that?
A. I am afraid I cannot recall that.
Q. You don't remember putting your initial on such a letter?
A. I cannot remember it.
Q. Did you talk to Baier at any time about these medical experiments?
A. I don't know that I have done so. All I knew was that the German Drug Company G.m.b.H. was not handled by me, and that Dr. Vaernet had a laboratory there in Prague where he worked. I did not bother about this matter otherwise.
Q. You don't remember seeing a letter from Vaernet to Pohl stating that, because of air attacks in Buchenwald, that the experiments would be postponed for two weeks? Does that refresh your recollection?
A. I cannot remember that, I am afraid, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q. And you didn't hear about any other kind of medical experiments?
A. No.
Q. Did you hear about any acts of violence of the SS, any violent acts, destruction of property, or deportation of Jews, or any of that nature?
A. No, I didn't hear about these things.
Q. Didn't hear about any-
A. That is to say, if you want to come back to what was know as the Crystal Sunday of 1938. But there, of course, I maintain - and all of us do - that the SS did not participate, which the IMT bore out as well.
Q. As far as you know-- Well, I think you are misinformed about what the IMT found, witness. But it is your testimony that you did not know that the SS participated? As far as you knew, the SS did not participate? Is that your testimony?
A. I know nothing about it. I was in Berlin all the time. That is to say, I did not go to the East, and I fought only when the Eastern front was on German Reich territory.
Q. You didn't see Jews rounded up in the streets in Berlin, the kind of scenes that Dr. Hohberg told us about?
A. I did not see it. All I heard was what the witness said here, that Jews were transported on furniture vans.
Q. You didn't hear about that before; that was the first you heard about it?
A. That Jews were sent away I heard; we were told that Jews were being resettled in the East.
Q. Did you hear that the SS had anything to do with it?
A. It is impossible for the SS to have had anything to do with it because the Gestapo did it, which was an agency of the Reich -- not the SS.
Q. You didn't hear anything about the Race and Resettlement Office taking a part in it?
A. The Race and Resettlement Main Office -- I don't know whether that office had anything to do with it. I don't believe so.
Q. What did you think the purpose of that office was? What functions did it have, Race and Resettlement?
A. In my opinion - which is based on a very superficial knowledge it had the following task. First of all, to give permission for marriages when an SS man wanted to get married, because there we have the questionnaire handed in if and when you want to get married, and there you must make all these statements. And the Office for Settlement, as I see it.
had the purpose to have, on the fringes of the Reich, or whenever Germany conquered new territories in the war, to organize settlements there. That is what I think the Race and Settlement Main Office did. But I don't know very much about it.
Q. Settlement for whom, in the occupied territories?
A. Settlement for the Germans.
Q. Witness, the concentration camp inmates were working in the WVHA Building in Berlin, were they not?
A. Yes, I saw ten or fifteen.
Q. They could be seen working there almost any time that you were there, is that not true?
A. Not all the time. Only after the air raids, if I remember correctly.
Q. They could be seen, would you say, on two or three days a week in the WVHA Building?
A. Yes. Yes, one could see them.
Q. And do you know what concentration camp they came from?
A. Not very precisely. Anyway they were accommodated in Berlin, as somebody told me, in some house in some street. I assume they came from the concentration camp Oranienburg Camp, but I am not quite sure.
Q. Did you know about concentration camp inmates being hanged in the courtyard of the WVHA Building?
A. No.
Q. Never heard about it?
A. No.
Q. Witness, will you look at Document Book XV, turning to another matter, and at page 48 of the German, Exhibit 413, page 37 of the English No-515. There is a list there of industries employing concentration camp inmates.
A. I am afraid I haven't got the document.
Q. Do you have it?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know of any other industries under W-1 where inmate labor was employed at any time?
A. I cannot recall that.
Q. Were there any other industries or work locations or plants of any kind under W-II that employed concentration camp inmates other than Golleschau?
A. I don't know, but I don't believe so.
Q. Will you look under W-VIII. Do you know of any other locations where concentration camp inmates were employed other than those listed here?
A. I know very little about W-VIII. I didn't even know that these enterprises had inmates. I am unable to answer that question. I really don't know.
Q. You didn't know that inmates were working at Wowelsburg?
A. I heard about that, yes, but Boddecken near Paderborn and Sachsenheim near Verden, I did not even know that they were part of the office.
Q. How many trips, witness, did you make to Switzerland?
A. I went to Switzerland four times, perhaps of five.
Q. And during what period of time was that?
A. I made the first trip in 1942.
Q. How long did you stay?
A. A week at the most. I had several orders to look after every time.
Q. And when was the second trip made?
A. In 1943, I also went to Switzerland. When and how often I don't remember. All I know is that in 1944 I went twice to Switzerland.
Q. And how long did you stay on the occasion in 1944?
A. In 1944 I believe I crossed the frontier on the 11th of July and recrossed it on the 18th and towards the end of October I went back once more for about a week.
Q. And is it your testimony that only on one occasion while you were in Switzerland did you hear about concentration camps in Germany?
A. That newspaper report, which I immediately told Pohl about because I regarded that as my duty, that is all I read in Switzerland.
Q. That's all your road in Switzerland, heard or read in Switzerland, about concentration camps?
A. Yes, I only talked to Swiss people.
MR. ROBBINS: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any redirect?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Witness, is the Syndikus, the legal expert, an employee who handle the legal matters of an enterprise? Is that a correct definition?
A. Yes, he can work on legal matters, but he need not do so. The term "Syndikus" in German is purely a title. I know several syndici who know nothing about legal matters.
Q. But as a rule one usually talks about one who is a legal expert, doesn't he?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it a legally defined title?
A. No.
Q. Why did you have the title?
A. I had another title before, when I was working in peacetime, But I could not keep it up, because I would be called up and drafted to work on economic matters. For that reason, I told Pohl I should have a title. I did not know what I could call myself in the telephone directory for my telephonic address, and, therefore, I called myself a Syndikus. That title was commonly objected to by many people, because it is a title such as Pohl's attorney had stated here, was used by the trade unions before 1933 for their legal experts.
Q. You were asked on cross examination whether you had made the request to leave the WVHA or the economic services of the SS. Was there any possibility for you to make such a request?
A. I was not allowed to make an official request.
Q. Why were you not allowed to do that?
A. Because, first of all, Himmler had forbidden anything of the sort. Too, Pohl during an official occasion said, "Who tries again to be transferred to the front, his application will be thrown into the wastepaper basket.
Who is going to the front I decide and nobody else." One morning when Pohl was in a good temper I asked him to go to the front and this happened on several occasions and when I did not get away with it, I told him one day that I would be ashamed of myself later on before my children when everybody had been at the front and I had not. That took effect. Pohl let me go at last. It probably was because I was so tied down in my office that I could hardly walk around when Pohl was in the building.
Q. Was your service with the WVHA regarded as a military service?
A. It was regarded as a military service, yes.
Q. Did you therefore have the possibility to pick and choose your activity within the military service?
A. No.
Q. I shall now talk about Document NO-1952, which is Exhibit 606. Have you got the document?
A. May I have the number once more?
Q. This is a letter of 30 July 1943. Have you got it?
A. Yes, I have got it.
Q. Were we concerned here with the allocation of inmates?
A. No.
Q. What was the subject matter of this letter?
A. Incidental expenses for the establishment of huts for the inmates.
Q. Is it correct that with regard to the payment of the expenses for huts for inmates a dispute arose between Bohemia and Office Group D?
A. Yes.
Q. Was the decision of the question as to who was to pay the expenses part of your duties?
A. No.
Q. Whose decision was it?
A. In the last instance it was Pohl's.
Q. Did you have to handle this question?
A. I was given the order to approach Office D-II with a letter, by Pohl.
Q. Who handled the expense side of the establishment of inmate huts?
A. As I remember, Maurer, because the letter shows the initials D-II.
Q. In other words, your whole activity in this matter consisted of the fact that you passed on a decision by Pohl to the export concerned, as a messenger?
A. Yes.
Q. Then you were asked the question of your handling matters concerning the wages for inmates. That question you answered in the negative, and when you wanted to give your answers, you were cut short. Please give us the reasons now why you answered in the negative. You wanted to refer to the document from which it becomes clear that you did not handle the wages of inmates?
A. The suggestions as to how much the inmates should be paid were submitted to me by Mr. Baier for my information, on that note which I initialed after I came back from an official trip. To handle the wages for inmates another legal expert was to be called in. He was the Office Chief of A-III, Dr. Salpeter. This becomes clear from Document NO-517, Volume XV, on page 57 of the German document book. I believe it is Exhibit No. 86 but I am not quite sure. I shall quote:
Q. I gave you my document book before. Go on and quote.
A. I shall quote. This is what Baier said: "Furthermore, Loerner and Oberfuehrer Dr. Salpeter are to be called in." A legal expert had already been called in, or was to be called in, and that was Dr. Salpeter. I had nothing to do with wages for inmates.
Q. Then Document NO-3769 was discussed. No. 607. It concerned the clearing treasury. Please state very briefly what that fund was.
A. This clearing treasury, or check-off, was an insurance enterprise. Every enterprise which employed inmates or used inmates had to pay in a certain sum of money. Now, if no inmates were supplied by the concentration camps and therefore the enterprise suffered a loss thereby because the expense and overhead of the enterprise continued, the enterprise could apply to the clearing treasury for adjustment, that this loss should be made good.
Q. Did you at any time handle any matters of this clearing treasury?
A. No.
Q. Under whom was this clearing treasury?
A. Chief of W, or Dr. Wenner.
Q. I show you how and ask you to turn to Document NO-3793, Exhibit 582, and NO-4073, which is Exhibit No. 583. These are two documents which are concerned with the Slate Oil Company. How many Slate Oil Companies existed?
A. There were two such companies.
Q. Will you please give us the names of those two companies?
A. The German Slate Oil, GmbH (Deutsche Schieferoel, GmbH), and the Oil Slate Research Company. I don't know whether it was a GmbH or an AG.
Q. What company had already started its activities?
A. The Oil Slate Research Company.
Q. What part of whose concern was this company?
A. It did not belong to any concern. It was under the Reich Offices for Economical Construction, and the Reich Offices for Economical Construction in its turn was under the agency of the Four Year Plan.
Q. Was the Oil Slate Research Company a subsidiary company of DWB?
A. No.
Q. Do you know who the partners of that company were?
A. No.
Q. Were you a partner of that company?
A. No.
Q. What was the purpose of this Oil Slate Research Company?
A. It was to test the patent whether you could gain oil from German slate. It was to establish a factory and operate that production for two years.
Q. Did that Oil Slate Research Company employ inmates in order to solve that problem?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the other company?
A. The German Slate Oil Company GmbH.
Q. What was the task of that company?