And then you signed it.
A. I have already discussed this subject once before, Your Honor. In examining this chart I requested that the individual Amtsgruppen should be examined by the heads of the Main Offices--which were located here in Nurnberg--because I cannot exactly recall who held the individual positions and who carried out the individual tasks. I, therefore, depended on this re-examination, and that is why I signed this chart. I do not know who carried out the examination of Amtsgruppe D, and that is where the mistake occurred.
Q. Are there any other mistakes in the chart that you know of?
A. I have not discovered any additional ones, up to now. However, it is a clear mistake because Sommer, first of all, was never Sturmbannfuehrer--but Hauptsturmfuehrer. And I can also recall that he was never appointed Deputy Chief of the Office because, actually, his grade was not sufficient for that. At that time he would have had to be Sturmbannfuehrer.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. RATZ (Counsel for the defendant Hermann Pook):
Q. Witness, in Amtsgruppe D, in the WVHA, Dr. Lolling was the chief of Amt D-3, the medical service of the concentration camps, and since the Fall of 1943 the dentist-in-charge there was the defendant Hermann Pook-
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Court, Counsel does not have to tell this witness what position Dr. Lolling held. The witness has already testified what position he held. I suggest that he ask what position Pook held without telling him or suggesting the answers.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead.
Q. Did you know what position Dr. Hermann Pook occupied in Office D-3?
A. I have seen Pook here in Nurnberg for the first time. I did not know that he was a member of Amtsgruppe D, and nor did I know that he was a dentist there.
I have never seen him previously in Berlin.
Q. Didn't you know his name in Berlin?
A. No, I did not know him by name either in Berlin.
Q. Can you tell us if the leading dentist participated in conferences or sessions with you?
A. I never saw him at my office.
Q. Then you probably cannot tell us either if he occupied the position of Amt-chief, (head of a department)?
A. No.
Q. Or that of a dentist-in-chief?
A. I don't know that either. I have only heard of these things here, and he Was completely unknown to me at Berlin.
Q. However, you did know Dr. Lolling?
A. Yes, I knew Lolling.
Q. How do you judge Lolling as far as his character is concerned?
A. Well, nothing in particular came to my attention with regard to him. I never knew any of his colleagues, and whatever he submitted to me he usually had written himself.
Q. I am talking about his colleagues; if he used a lot of them or if he tended to primarily carry out all the work by himself.
A. I cannot give you any information at all about that because I do not know.
Q. What did you personally have to do with Lolling?
A. Lolling submitted monthly medical reports to me about the concentration camps.
Q. Did he also discuss dental questions with you?
A. No.
Q. During his discussions with you, did he ever consult another physician or another dentist?
A. Lolling always saw me alone.
Q. You described to us yesterday that Sturmbannfuehrer Melmer had been given the assignment to supervise the transport of valuables from Auschwitz to the building of the WVHA at Berlin, and then to accompany these objects directly to the Reichsbank.
Do you know if Amt D-3 was the -- Did Dr. Lolling or one of his colleagues have anything to do with this turning over of the objects?
A. On my part I would say that they did not have anything to do with it. I have not heard anything which would allow this conclusion.
Q. Do you know who supervised the removal of the gold fillings from teeth of prisoners who had died?
A. I do not know who issued an order to that effect.
Q. With regard to the removal of gold fillings from prisoners who had died of natural causes, a previous order in 1940 had been issued by Himmler. Do you know anything with regard to that order?
A. I knew nothing of this order because he only entered the office in 1942.
Q. Do you know anything about the fact that this gold from the teeth which was removed in the case of prisoners who had died of natural causes was delivered through the concentration camp administration and not through the dentist Amt D-3?
A. No, I do not know anything about it -
MR. ROBBINS: I object to the question and ask that it be stricken from the record.
THE PRESIDENT: In view of the witness's answer that he knows nothing about it, the question has not led him to a favorable answer. I do not think your objection calls for a ruling.
Q. The gold which originated from the mass executions at Auschwitz, therefore, as you said did not go through the administration of the concentration camp Oranienburg but it was sent directly from Auschwitz to Berlin and was delivered to the Reichsbank.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait, wait. You see, that isn't even a question. You didn't ask him anything--you just told him several facts. That is objectionable.
Q. The witness has already testified that transports went from Auschwitz directly to the Reichsbank at Berlin, and I therefore asked him if he can say if the transports were in any way channeled through Oranienburg.
A. I know nothing about that, and I do not know if these objects passed through Oranienburg on their way to Berlin.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. HEIM (Counsel for the defendant Hohberg):
Q. Witness, when did you first make the acquaintance of the codefendant Hohberg?
A. Approximately in 1940.
Q. Can you still remember the occasion when you made his acquaintance for the first time?
A. At the time I met him personally at Prague on the occasion of a final conference with regard to some sort of an examination.
Q. As far as you know, by whose order did Dr. Hohberg carry out this examination?
A. I cannot remember that anymore.
Q. What was it that brought about the contract between you and Dr. Hohberg?
A. At the time I contacted Oberfuehrer Mueckel who had pointed out Dr. Hohberg to me, and I had ordered Dr. Mueckel to establish contact with him and to ask him whether he was prepared to work for me as an economic auditor.
Q Can you tell us approximately the contents of this contract?
A It was a very brief and simple contract which contained the obligations arising out of it, that is, his entry as an economic auditor and my personal consultant in matters pertaining to the examination and auditing of taxes and on the question of regulations about his salary.
Q Was the codefendant Hohberg employed in the WVHA by virtue of this contract?
A No, he did not become an employee, but he actually remained a free economic auditor and the contract which I concluded with him was just a contract for employment. It was not an official contract.
Q According to the regulations of this contract, did Dr. Hohberg have to carry out an auditing work and consulting work toward the authorities of the WVHA, that is, within Amtsgruppe A, B, C, and D?
A He had nothing whatsoever to do with these Amtsgruppes.
Q Did you ever appoint the codefendant Dr. Hohberg as chief of an Amt?
A That was impossible, because he was not even a member of the SS.
Q On the chart presented by the prosecution, Dr. Hohberg has been described Chief of Staff W. Can you tell us whether this designation on this chart is correct or not?
A This designation in itself is correct, and that is the reason why I left it in its present form. I have already stated why I selected the same picture for the economic enterprises as for the remainder of the Amtsgruppe and offices. However in Amtsgruppe W, there was never the office of a Chief of Staff. The members of Staff W were my personal collaborators and they were all on the same level. They worked on various matters and if I am to describe here the position of the Chief of Staff W, then I could say that he was Primus inter Paris.
Q Witness, if I understood you correctly
MR. ROBBINS: Excuse me, I didn't get the last answer. Will you repeat it please?
THE PRESIDENT: He was something -
INTERPRETER: He was "Primus inter Paris", the first among equal partners.
Q Witness, if I understood you correctly then, you have never appointed Dr. Hohberg as Chief of an Amt?
A He has never received such an appointment from me.
Q Do you know that in the Institute of Economic Auditors, which was superior to Dr. Hohberg - in 1942 a denunciation arrived there from an unknown person which stated that Dr. Hohberg was chief of an Amt in the WVHA and, therefore, he should lose his qualifications as an economic auditor?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Do you know who made this denunciation at that time or who was alleged to have made it?
A I believe it came from an employee of Staff W, whose name, however, I can not remember any more at this moment.
Q Do you perhaps happen to know what happened to this employee of Staff W?
A He was charged with libel and he was jailed by a court.
Q Do you know how the Institute of Economic Auditors, the superior agency of Dr. Hohberg reacted to that denunciation?
A I can remember that answering an inquiry by the Institute for Economic Auditors, I said that Dr. Hohberg was employed by me as a free worker and that he was my personal consultant in tax matters and that he did not carry out any function of authority and that he was not an employee of the WVHA.
Q Witness, if I understood you correctly, you informed the Institute for Economic Auditors at the time that Dr. Hohberg was neither an employee nor a business manager nor a head clerk in the WVHA or the DWB.
A Yes, that is about right, he was only an employee.
Q What firms were basically comprised in Staff W according to their branches?
A The firms which according to the character of their production could not be incorporated into the other offices. The offices were distributed according to fields of tasks, earth and stone, food, and so forth, and the firms that could not be comprised into those fields of tasks were then incorporated into Staff W.
Q From your organizational incorporation of the firms into Staff-W can the conclusion be drawn that the members of Staff W had authority to issue orders towards these firms?
A No.
Q Whom, for example, were the Eastern industries subordinated to and the German Medicine, G.m.b.H.?
A It was so that these enterprises were subordinated to me personally and that in directing these enterprises I used the collaborators in Staff W according to the questions with which I had to deal, that is, legal questions, registration questions, tax questions, and so on.
Q If you used the members of Staff W, did these have a right to issue instructions to the firms in question?
A No, only I had the right to issue instructions.
Q Is it correct that negotiations took place for the appointment of a General Director for the DWB and this was to be established under your direction?
A Yes. Already at that time I wanted to take Amtsgruppe W out of the WVHA and I wanted to make a free, separate enterprise out of it under a general director.
At that time I negotiated with several people. However, no agreement was reached.
Q I now refer to Document 1005, Prosecution Exhibit 390, in Document Book 14. This document shows that the SS Member 'Grueber, who had been placed at Dr. Hohberg's disposal, was taken away from him in 1944 and that he was assigned to other war work. Was Dr. Hohberg informed of this on the same day?
A I can not recall that exactly. I only know that about that time the auditors which were at Dr. Hohberg's disposal in Staff W were dismissed in order to simplify the organization and that they were turned over to the main companies and affiliated projects.
Q From that moment on, did the previous members of the Waffen-SS of Staff W no longer belong to Staff W?
A No, from that time on they were not members of the Staff W any more, but they had been detailed to the affiliated company.
Q When did you entrust the Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr Horn with the preparation of the establishment of the Osti, who, until then, had been one of the auditors?
MR. ROBBINS: May I ask that the counsel reword the question. It is obviously leading.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I can not quite understand whether the prosecution means by that I asked a leading question?
THE PRESIDENT: The latter part of your question started to state facts to the witness. If you will stop with the first part of your question, you will be all right. Start it over again and I will stop you at the right point.
Q When did you entrust Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Horn with the preparation of the establishment of the Osti?
THE PRESIDENT: There. Fine.
AApproximately in January 1943.
Q Until that period of time was Dr. Horn one of your auditors?
A Yes.
Q Did Dr. Hohberg from the 20th of January 1943 on have any right to issue instructions to the auditors who had been detached, in particular to Dr. Horn?
A I can not confirm that date. The authority of Dr. Hohberg to issue instructions to auditors ended with their assignment to the enterprises. Also Dr. Horn was taken away from his control with the assignment which was connected with the establishment of the Osti.
Q. Do you know up to what time the action Reinhart was treated as top secret in the WVHA?
A. Always.
Q. From your knowledge of this state of affairs, can you tell me if it was possible that members of the Staff W before the end of June 1943 knew anything about the character of the action Reinhart?
A. Probably not before that period of time but only from the time on when the definition Reinhart Fund became known in connection with a credit to the DWB with Staff W.
Q. Do you know if perhaps the designation Reinhart Fund was chosen because the outsiders would come across this name in connection with State Secretary Reinhart in the Reich Ministry of Finance?
A. I do not know that.
Q. Was the suggestion to turn over some part of the prisoners pay to the Lebensborn made? Was this question over discussed, or was it ever considered as being a serious suggestion?
A. I immediately disapproved the suggestion at the time.
Q. Is it correct that in the year 1942 Dr. Hohberg requested you, stating that for reasons of taxation he wanted to withdraw the drafts of Dr. Volk before you had a chance to sign them?
MR. ROBBINS: I object to the question.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, let me get technical. I can't rule on an objection to a question unless you state the reason for it.
MR. ROBBINS: The reason, your Honor, is that I believe it is clearly leasing.
THE PRESIDENT: Your objection is well taken. Start all over again and don't tell the witness too much.
DR. HEIM: I shall take the leading part out of the question.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q. Did Dr. Hohberg ever request you that for reasons of taxation he should be able to see the drafts of Dr. Volk before they were signed by you?
A. I cannot remember exactly that.
Q. Do you know what liaison man you used in the course of negotiations with the Czech government, especially during the negotiations with Frank and his collaborators, and do you know that you appointed Oberregierungsrat Giess to that assignment?
A. Yes, that was Oberfuehrer Moeckl whom I have mentioned before. That was a man through whom I made the acquaintance of Hohberg. But Moeckl was there for a long time. And later on there was some one else.
Q. Was only this liaison man used, or were other persons consulted in these negotiations?
A. Well, that was his assignment. Whenever we had some negotiations with the government at Prague, I would entrust these negotiations to the liaison man.
Q. Was the co-defendant Hohberg consulted in the question of raising the pay of the concentration camp prisoners?
A. I do not think so. That was a purely financial matter over which I decided personally.
Q. Did anybody in the Staff W participate in the reimbursement of concentration camp commanders as directors of plants?
A. I do not recall that anymore. I believe that I myself fixed the figures of these amounts.
Q. Did the Staff W have anything at all to do with that?
A. No.
Q. Did the DWB carry out this reimbursement by your orders?
A. Yes.
Q. I now refer to Prosecution Document 2160, Prosecution Exhibit 76, Document Book 3, on page 104 of the German text. It is a letter of Amtsgruppe D to the SS WVHA Staff W; and it deals with you directions for reimbursement to the concentration camp commanders as compensation for their activity by virtue of the labor allocation in accordance with your order which you have mentioned previously.
The same applies to another letter from Amtsgruppe D which was submitted under the same document number; but it is located in Document Book 3, of the German text, page 106.
I now ask you, regarding these letters which were sent by Gluecks and Maurer, were these letters corrections of your original instructions?
A. I cannot tell that anymore today; and I assume that they were clarifications about changes as to the use by the recipients, these notifications as to transfers of commanders. However, I cannot give you any exact information about that.
Q. Were such rectifications which you have talked about just now currently necessary?
A. Only in case where changes occurred.
Q. Did the co-defendant Hohberg have anything to do with the utilization of concentration camp labor?
A. No, he had nothing to do with it.
Q. In 1942 did you disapprove of the use of this plant Butschuwitz for armament production, which had been intended for the construction of jet propelled planes (Me-262) planes because it was virtually already fully working for the Messerschmidt plant?
A. Yes, I can still remember that exactly because Himmler intervened at that time; and by his personal orders I had to withdraw my previous orders.
Q. Now, my final question. Do you know what part the co-defendant Hohberg played in the so-called Staff Kessler?
A. There he was deputy to Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. May who as a staff chancellor worked in the field of the jet propelled planes.
DR. HEIM: Thank you, I have no further questions.
EXAMINATION BY DR. FRITSCH (for defendant BAIER):
Q. Witness, you already knew Baier before 1937 when Baier came to the SS Verfuegunstruppe Special Purpose Squads; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know the details of the transfer of Baier, who at that time was Kapitaenleutnant in the administration?
A. I already knew Baier from the time when I served in the Navy; and I thought he was a very talented young man as far as paedagogy was concerned. Since at that time I was looking for a commander for an SS administrative training school, I turned to him and asked him if he was prepared to take over such a position. After he had stated his readiness to do so, I requested his transfer from the Navy to the Waffen SS; and this was duly carried out.
Q. Could this transfer be considered equal to a transfer to another branch of the Wehrmacht?
A. Yes.
Q. With what grade was Baier transferred to the SS Task Group?
A. I believe that he was Sturmbannfuehrer.
Q. Baier was Kapitaenleutnant "V" in the Navy. To what grade would this correspond in the SS Task Group?
A. Hauptsturmfuehrer.
Q. Would it, therefore, not be correct to say that Baier was transferred as Hauptsturmfuehrer?
A. I cannot say that exactly, whether he was Hauptsturmfuehrer or whether he was Sturmbannfuehrer. Sturmbannfuehrer is one grade higher; and that would have been possible. However, I do not know for sure.
Q. Did Baier obtain a quick promotion with the SS Task Group for special merit or perhaps because he had special contacts, special relations?
A. No, he was given a normal promotion.
Q. When Baier was detached and transferred, did he already have special relations to the SS?
A. He did not have them as far as I know.
Q. You stated with regard to a previous question that you esteemed Baier because of his paedagogical capabilities and that because of this you wanted him to exercise his activities as a teacher. Was he given such a position; and what did his activity consist of?
A. Yes, he was given such a position. He became director of the administrative school at Dachau where he gave lectures.
Q. What was the task of this school?
A. This school was to give specialized training deplacements for the administrative field of the Waffen SS.
Q. What do you mean, specialized training?
A. Training in all fields of administration in the Waffen SS.
Q. Can you tell me one or two of the subjects which were taught there?
A. The finance system, the clothing supply system, the pay system, the food supply system, and all the fields which exist within the framework of a military administration.
Q. In one of the documents, an affidavit which was submitted by the prosecution, a certain man by the name of Phillip Grimm had stated that the task of this school was the training of SS men for the concentration camp administration?
A. Such a branch never existed. There was only one type of administration leader in the SS and there no difference was made. The administrative leader on one day would, say, perform as a battalion leader in the Waffen-SS, and on another occasion would perform the same duty as administrator in the concentration camp. They all belonged to a group of persons who received the same training. There was no special training for the concentration camp administration and they were used in ordinary administrative agencies of the Waffen-SS. He could be assigned to units, to a clothing factory, or he could be assigned to the administration of a concentration camp. However, no difference was made in that respect.
Q. Can you tell me how many classes this school had?
A. Well, the school was small at the beginning. I believe only a few classes were held. Only in the course of years these training courses were enlarged, so that several classes existed.
Q. Was this school continued at the outbreak of the war?
A. No, I don't think so. Oh, yes. Yes, it was continued.
Q. Was it interrupted.
A. Yes, at the outbreak of the war it was first interrupted, and then subsequently it was resumed.
Q. Did any objections arise against this teaching activity of Baier?
A. No. He was well known as an excellent teacher and school commander.
Q. And in a moral respect?
A. No complaint on morals, so far as I know.
Q. Then he was transferred to the Waffen-SS, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know when this took place?
A. He was already transferred into the Waffen-SS when he was transferred to the SS.
Q. Do you mean to say in 1937?
A. Yes.
Q. In August 1943 you transferred Baier to the WVHA in Berlin. Was this done at the approval of Baier? Did he ask you for this assignment?
A. No, Baier did not want to go at the time because he liked the school very much. However, as much as I needed a good school commander at the time, I now needed him for the direction of economic enterprise, and I had to get a reviewer of books for that purpose. Before he reentered the Navy, Baier worked for a long time as auditor with the financial authority in northern Germany. I also knew that; and then actually against his will I transferred him from the school in Dachau and I had him assigned to Berlin as auditor.
THE PRESIDENT: Where did you say the school was located, the SS administrative school?
THE WITNESS: It was located at Dachau.
BY DR. FRITSCH:
Q. Can you tell me with regard to this question just where this school was located at Dachau?
A. It was located in the so-called training camp at Dachau.
Q. What was the connection of this training with the concentration camp?
A. The training camp at Dachau was not connected at all with the concentration camp.
Q. Was it completely separated from the concentration camp so far as the space was concerned?
A. Yes.
Q. Were not the teachers and the students forced to come into contact with the concentration camp and go into the concentration camp when going to school?
A. No, when they went to the school they did not have to enter the concentration camp. The school was located at a camp which was completely separated from the concentration camp, so far as space was concerned.
Q. Therefore, it was located at another part of the city, is that correct?
A. I could not say that, because the school was also located outside in the so-called SS area. After all Dachau was far removed from the SS area.
Q. It was stated that you had Baier transferred to WVHA in Berlin against his will. That is to say, you used your authority and you transferred the soldier Baier to another agency. Did I understand your question correctly in this respect?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. In your opinion did Baier know of the task in the WVHA when you transferred him to Amtsgruppe W?
A. Up to that time he had only been at Dachau, and then he only knew of the WVHA from the organizational chart. He did not know the inner contacts and the work methods up to that time.
Q. What documents did you give Baier at the WVHA? I don't want you to think in that respect of how you wanted to extend his position a little later on; I want to know the task which he was to take over when he entered the WVHA.
A. Baier was to carry out this particular task, namely, the examining of books of the enterprises, and another auditing system was to be established by him.
Q. Did you have any special reason to have such auditing work carried out?
A. This became necessary with the establishing after 1942 of the enterprises for the execution of which a special auditing system became necessary.
Q. Do I understand you correctly to say that Baier, just like in his former position as employee in the finance office, was to carry out the auditing work and to supervise this work?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. The prosecution has stated in its opening speech that Baier had been your economic consultant.
A. For me Baier was one of the collaborators in Staff W in the field of auditing. That is the reason why I had him transferred, because he was a professional auditor, to Staff W.
Q. Did Baier have any previous commercial training?
A. I believe that in 1918, after having been discharged from the Navy, he studied economics, and then he specialized as an auditor. That is the reason why I had him transferred to my agency.
Q. Do you know what I mean by commercial training?
A. Yes. One cannot say that he had received special commercial training.
Q. The prosecution has further stated, and I quote: "All contacts with higher Party authorities or ministerial departments and the central authorities had to be channeled through the Chief of Staff of Amt W." What can you tell me in that respect?
A. I do not believe that Baier at any time negotiated with any ministry.
Q. Was the mail directed to him?
A. I do not quite understand your question.
Q. In the statement of the prosecution the mail system was also mentioned.
A. Correspondence to the ministries and to all higher authorities, Amtsgruppe W and other of the Amtsgruppen, had to go through me. I don't think there was any other system.
Q. Now I would like to ask another question in which it was stated that Frank or Georg Loerner were your deputies. I would now like to read to you a statement of Baier, which is located in Document Book 1, on page 95 of the German text, Exhibit No. 15.
It states there, and I quote: "Chief of Amtsgruppe W was Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl himself, and at the same time first business manager of the economy concern. The second business manager was Gruppenfuehrer Loerner. Since the beginning, August 1943, until the capitulation in May 1945, I was Pohl's deputy in Amtsgruppe W. I was the Senior Chief of Amtsgruppe W and as such automatically Pohl's deputy." Is this statement correct in your opinion?
A. Yes. Baier said so but that does not apply to the real condition. The man who were collaborators were in similar positions.
Q. I am only interested in whether it is correct or not - please.
A. I cannot describe it as being correct.
Q. In Amtsgruppe W, or in Staff W, Baier had a lot of work, especially since a similar position had been empty for sometime.
A. Yes, he had plenty of work to do.
Q. Do you believe that Baier needed some time in order to get used to his work and in order to completely understand the matters which were dealt with in Staff W?
A. Well, if one considers that thirty or forty enterprises and a large number of individual plants had to be administered, then this, of course, could not be so easily taken care of by a new worker like Baier. He certainly needed a certain period of time in order to get used to this work.
Q. Did Baier actually begin in establishing an auditing section?
A. Yes.
Q. To the question of one of my colleagues you have stated that there actually was no chief of Staff W, and this, of course, is in contrast to the actual definition. I, therefore, ask you why Baier was later on described as being Chief of Staff W?
A. I cannot recall that any member of Staff W was ever appointed chief of office (Amtschef). It would only have become concrete from that moment on, where just like all other cases, he would have received a written appointment, or commission, and I know that such a commission was never issued in Amtsgruppe W.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you finish in a few minutes? Shall we wait until tomorrow morning?
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I would continue tomorrow morning; however, I would like to have this question answered. It will only take about two minutes.
BY DR. FRITSCH:
Q. You will have to admit, witness, that this answer is not very satisfactory. In fact, the designation like "Chief of Staff W" existed and, therefore, did these men promote themselves?
A. You did not let me finish. I was just about to describe that commissions and documents on which such nominations would be based, that is to say, "Chief of Staff W" or "chief of the office", were never issued in Amtsgruppe W. I have also described just why, as long as Amtsgruppe W was in the organization of the WVHA, that particular term was used. However, that never changed the status of people who were working there. I could have called the collaborators there as first, second, or third clerks; then the various positions would have arisen.
Q. However, Baier did not have the title of business manager and did not have another title in the economic sense. You previously mentioned "Primus inter paris". Did you want to connect such a position with the establishment of the title "Chief of Staff W"?
A. If I described the Chief of Staff W as head of "Primus inter paris", it is only a choice of words. I have never called him Chief of Staff W. We did call him Chief of Staff W but actually he was nothing but the main collaborator.
DR. FRITSCH: Thank you, Your Honor. May I continue tomorrow?
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
(Whereupon the Tribunal adjourned until 23 May 1947 at 0930 hours.)