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.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Oswald Pohl, et al., defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 15 May 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Robert M. Toms, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal No. 2.
Military Tribunal No. 2 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Marshal, you will please ascertain if all the defendants are present in the Court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the Court.
DR. FRITSCH: Dr. Fritsch for the defendant Baier.
BY DR. FRITSCH:
Q. Witness, yesterday we started discussing the whole question of "Staff-W," or the Chief of Staff-W. You said, yesterday, that the StaffW had not been an office in the sense of the other "W" offices, or, any other office, and, of course, that Baier had not been chief of an office, but because of his rank, the way you put it, he had been "primus inter rares", and had been your helper for certain business questions, such as on revision questions and legal questions, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Then you said that Baier because of his knowledge for auditing books had been used in that capacity, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now did Baier actually audit books, and did he uncover things which had been handled incorrectly?
A. Baier did audit books and he came across inefficiencies.
Q. You say he came across inefficiencies. Could you put it a little more strongly of things which were incorrect, embesselments, or things of that sort?
A. No, I did not hear anything about that. I know nothing about that.
Q. Can you tell me how this audit work was done. Maybe I could explain my question. How was it done from the desk, I should ask. That is to say, did Baier look at the files of various companies, or did he send his officials to the enterprises?
A. The auditing work, of course, was done at the enterprises. Baier sent his assistants to the enterprises, and so far as I can recall he sometimes himself went to the company in order to supervise the work.
Q. Now, when Baier found out these incorrect things, was he in a position to change them himself, or did he have to report to you and caused the action to be taken?
A. He would report to me, of course, on all auditing work, and made a proposition how to rectify the deficiencies. The order necessary for this was issued by me in every case.
Q. I would like to ask you something here which has been touched on before, who was in charge of production management in your enterprises?
A. The central orders concerning the production I issued to the managers of the various enterprises themselves, and they would pass them on for execution to the work managers.
Q. Now Baier, or the entire Staff-W as such, did they have anything to do with this?
A. The collaborators in Staff-W as such, did they have anything to do with this.
Q. Now I want to clarify Baier's position. Did Baier have anything to do with an agency there which was superior or equal to WVHA. To quote from a statement, did he in any official capacity have relations with Himmler, or his adjutant, or did he have negotiations with them?
A. Baier never went to Himmler, nor do I know that at any time he negotiated with him or his agents. About all conferences concerning economical enterprises I would speak to him myself. Neither Baier nor any other member of Staff-W would participate in this.
Q. How were the official relations between Baier and Office-D, were there any such relations?
A. He had nothing to do with Office Group-D.
Q. In Document Book 15, Exhibit No. 415, and onwards, there is a brief correspondence between Maurer and Baier. I believe I need not read this correspondence here, because you will probably recall it if I tell you that the subject is wages for inmates of concentration camps. Can you tell us how this correspondence came about?
I ordered Baier to furnish me with documents concerning the development of wages for inmates and prepare all questions concerned therewith. In this work he took Maurer as the expert for inmate labor, and that is how the correspondence probably came about. Otherwise the two had no official contact because in his position Baier had nothing to do with inmate labor, and because he was so remote from this he had to consult the men who would be familiar with the practical conditions of inmate labor, and in that case it was Maurer.
Q. Now, how far, do you believe, was it possible for Baier to look into concentration camp conditions? Perhaps I can specify my question. When Baier worked on this problem, was this office work, or did he have to go to concentration camps in order to obtain evidence?
A. In order to work on this problem it was not necessary to go to the enterprises to make studies. It was a type of work of purely economical nature and it could be done very well from one's office.
Q. Was Baier's order carried out, or did you tell somebody else to do it?
A. I believe the order was worked out by Baier. Later on there were very elaborate investigations which became necessary because conditions in the enterprises were not coordinated and the work had not been concluded by the time the war ended.
Q. In order to refresh your memory, Witness, I would like to give you the name of Standartenfuehrer Moser.
A. I believe it is possible that Standartenfuehrer Moser, who, I believe, towards the end of 1944 was Maurer's representative or successor in the Office D-11, was consulted in Maurer's place and furnished the necessary documents and evidence, as far as that was necessary for the enterprises.
Q. I am sorry to say, Witness, I must go on with this problem. Moser, which I will have to tell you, I suppose, was ordered by you to look after the wage scales instead of Baier. Can you remember that?
A. I cannot remember that detail, but it is possible.
Q. Did you ever take Baier with you to a concentration camp?
A. I cannot recall that he ever accompanied me.
Q. Did you send him with an order to a concentration camp with the order being that Baier had to actually inspect the concentration camp rather than the enterprises outside the concentration camp?
A. No.
Q. We spoke of the relations between office chiefs, in particular that of Chief of Office W to yourself and others. The question of disciplinary authority was touched upon by one of my colleagues. Did Baier, within Staff W, have any disciplinary authority?
A. No, the disciplinary authority was in my hands as far as military personnel was involved.
Q. Do you know whether Baier was at any time business manager, deputy business manager or member of the board of one of your companies?
A. He was not that in any of my companies as far as I can recall.
Q. Did Baier or other members of Staff W have anything to say in connection with the commitment of inmates that is with the Gestapo or the criminal police?
A. No.
Q. And does the same apply to questions of clothing of inmates, their feeding, and so forth?
A. Yes.
Q. Was Baier in a position to give orders concerning the allocation of inmates?
A. No.
Q. Was Baier or anybody on Staff W ever informed on certain conditions in concentration camps such as medical experiments, new arrivals, releases, and such matters, which they are charged with by the prosecution, were they informed, either in writing or orally?
A. Nothing could reach them officially.
Q. Now, you have known the Defendant Baier from the time before 1914 when you were in the Navy. Did you at any time tell him anything privately about these things? I mean, that would be logical, wouldn't it?
A. Our interests, outside of his house, were in a different field, and I did not discuss it with him.
Q. Did Staff W employ inmates?
A. No, they had no reason to do so.
Q. Did Baier take part in the commandants' conferences? You will recall Pister's statement where he says that the chiefs of offices were allegedly participating in these conferences.
A. That is Pister's mistake. He was thinking of certain social occasions which took place on the eve of the official conferences in Berlin. The actual official conferences in Oranienburg is what he confuses with these social occasions. I do not believe that Baier was present even on the social occasions in Berlin, but I am not quite sure. As far as the official conferences at Oranienburg are concerned, however, he certainly did not take part.
Q. Now, Witness, on direct examination you stated that you very strictly observed Fuehrer order No. 1, that is to say, you told your subordinates nothing of orders or decrees, no matter whether they were secret or not. What you told them was only inasfar as that concerned your subordinates themselves immediately. In this connection I wish to discuss the question of the leadership principle, the Fuehrer Prinzip. Would you please tell the Court briefly what the Fuehrer principle meant to Germany?
A. The Fuehrer principle was a basic law of all political and economic matters. Its most prominent mark perhaps was that the man at the helm of a political, or any other organization, was the one who was solely in charge of that organization and was solely responsible. His orders and instructions had to be complied with by all, and it was he who above all was responsible for the strict observation of Fuehrer order No. 1. Everybody, when the matter concerned was a secret one, must be informed of it only inasmuch as he required it to carry out his share in his matter. Within his own activity everyone was responsible himself. That responsibility, however, rested finally with the Fuehrer who was in charge of the organization.
He alone represented the organization towards the outside and to people above him. That roughly is the essential thing.
BY JUDGE MUSSMANO:
Q. Witness, do I understand that under this principle no one could question an order, a decree or a judgment of Hitler who was No. 1?
A. That's right.
Q. Hitler as No. 1 would pass an order on to No. 2, 2 to No. 3, 3 to No. 4 and so on and all along the line no one could question the judgment of the number which preceded him, is that correct?
A. Nobody could question the command. Nobody was entitled to criticize or not to observe the order through his own opinion or judgment. That was the most distinguishing mark of the Fuehrer principle. The order which came down from above had to be carried out.
Q. So that if the order coming from No. 1 was one which was obviously detrimental, even to the German people, the order had to be carried out without question?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. The principle did not allow of an analysis of a judgment in order to ascertain whether it was beneficial or not to the people?
A. That did not exist. No criticism was possible with regard to the order.
Q. So that you accepted No. 1 as being utterly infallible?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you now today believe that was a good principle for a government and for a civilized people?
A. I no longer think so.
Q. Did you think so then?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. You did believe that was proper, to mortgage your judgment and to set aside your principles and your conscience and to accept blindly whatever came down from No. 1 or No. 2, or whichever number preceded your number?
A. Yes, that is so, and one can only understand it if one looks at the conditions and the developments in Germany after 1918. I and millions of other Germans deplored the dissolution, deplored our political life, the muddle and the confusion.....
Q. Yes, we understand the difficulties which confronted Germany from 1918 on until 1933, the multiplicity of political parties, the confusion and chaos, and so on. None the less, did you accept that Hitler, and all numbers which followed him before your number came up, could not possibly err, that they could not possibly make a mistake, even with the best of intentions?
A. No man is infallible. It was my conviction that in all his measures he wanted the best for the German people and that there were no mistakes in those measures.
Q. Then you believed that Hitler was to a certain extent infallible at that time?
A. I cannot assume that of any man, that a man is infallible, but I myself did not have any occasion to discover mistakes which I could recognize in Hitler's direct orders.
Q. But if you accepted him as a leader whose orders at no time were to be questioned, then you had to accept him as being infallible, or otherwise to shelve your conscience.
A. It was possible, I do not wish to deny the possibility, that orders or instructions are issued which perhaps might have caused the man concerned to have a dilemma in his conscience, but that existed also in other spheres. If I remember, for instance, the world from which I came, the world of the soldier, where, in the last analysis, obedience, subordination and force dictated the law of life, there again positions would arise where the soldier faced a dilemma in his conscience. So, therefore, this is nothing unusual and could of course arise from Hitler's order.
Q. But today you admit, and have just now so stated on the witness stand, that this blind adherence and obedience to Hitler was incorrect and brought you and the rest of Germany to disaster.
A. There cannot be any doubt that the Fuehrer principle must not be exaggerated. I no longer think today that it is a suitable means.
Q. Now, just one more question. If Hitler had succeeded in the achievement of his plans, and with that success you yourself would have found yourself in a very advantageous and comfortable position, would you in that case have believed that the Fuehrer principle is still wrong?
A. As the Fuehrer principle had shown in practice that it is not a feasible means, this is surely an academic question.
Q. No, no, I asked if Hitler had succeeded in world, or let's say European domination and subjugation, if conditions had remained as they were, let's say, in 1942, before the Allies - or before 1943 before the Allies were able to actually achieve a successful landing, and to that extent the Fuehrer principle would have been materially successful, would you, in that case, still believe that it was wrong?
A. If the Fuehrer had been successful, that would have proved that the Fuehrer principle is correct.
Q. Even though in that case France and Italy and Czechoslovakia, and all the other countries, Norway and Denmark and Holland, would have been subjugated and without any liberty or freedom such as we believe every man is entitled to, you would still in that case believe that the Fuehrer principle was correct, wouldn't you?
A. The Fuehrer principle is a symptom which came to daylight not only in Germany, but it prevailed all over the Continent. I can't----
Q. In other words, as I understand it, you now admit that the Fuehrer principle was wrong because it failed in achieving the domination which you thought it might have achieved in the early days of Hitlerism?
A. If your Honor please, it was as wrong in Germany as it is right in Russia today. Something looks different one time from what it looks later on. What was wrong in Germany and what was unsuccessful in Italy is generally recognized as a success in Russia, because in Russia the Fuehrer principle prevails, and it subjugates all countries, even Germany.
That is a totalitarian state based on the Fuehrer principle. Hitler, unhappily, had no success, and therefore he is wrong. Stalin is right because he is successful.
JUDGE MUSSMANO: You may proceed.
BY DR. FRITSCH (For Defendant Baier):
Q. Witness, there is one point still about this question of the Fuehrer principle, as his Honor asked you, about criticism. Now, that is a secondary point. Was there ever any consultation in the Fuehrer staff?
A. According to the Fuehrer principle there cannot be any consultation. An order comes from above and is carried out.
Q. And these principles also prevailed in the WVHA?
A. I ordered in the WVHA, and things were carried out. I am fully responsible for that today, and I accept that today.
Q. Now a few smaller questions. Witness, do you know whether Baier was present in the Gruppenfuehrer meeting at Posen?
A. No, he was not.
Q. Did you officially or privately tell him of the Posen speech?
A. No.
Q. Has that speech perhaps been duplicated and translated, and would it have been possible that Baier came across it?
A. I do not think that this speech was translated, nor do I believe that Baier was informed of it through that way.
Q. Did the Defendant Baier, during his activity in Staff W, take part in the negotiations of stone and earth enterprises to concentration camps?
A. He had nothing to do with the management of the enterprises, and therefore these tasks did not concern him.
Q. In April 1942 you, Witness, handed over the management of economic enterprises in the camps to the camp commanders through the channels of command between Office Group W and the camp commandants. *****************************. Did such a channel of command decide you to take this measure?