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?
A. No, that had nothing to do with Office Group W. It was a measure that simply concerned the enterprises themselves.
Q. When discussing auditing problems, that is to say, the results which would result from an auditing measure, surely you discussed with the Defendant Baier the question of how an enterprise should be run in future. I want to give you two slogans for instance, here, a conservative or consolidating or expanding measure, for instance. What was the view which Baier would take?
A. I myself took the view that time had come to stop any further expansion of our economic enterprises, which is the reason why I maintained therefore the existing enterprises should be consolidated, and Baier had to follow that view, and he did that on his own initiative actually because he shared my view.
Q. Concerning Osti, Witness, I have two questions. Osti, several months before Baier joined Staff W, had been founded, and if I followed you correctly yesterday, in the autumn of 1943 it had been dissolved, is that correct?
A. Well, the liquidation of Osti was not finished in the autumn of 1943. It was still used for a period of time after that.
Q. Now about the DWB, what did DWB have to do with Osti?
A. The DWB had nothing to do with Osti because Osti was not a branch of DWB. I quoted it in the chart of Office W because I was on the board, but the business management was in Lublin, and points of contact where allocations of labor were concerned, were negligible.
Q. I shall now quote from Document Book 19, page 7 of the Terman text, Exhibit No. 61. And I shall quote from the last paragraph of a file note by Dr. Horn:
"It become clear from today's conference with the Obergruppenfurhrer that the managers of Osti, as far as all decisions and measures in connection with Osti are concerned, have a free hand."
Can you tell me what this means?
A. That means that the managers of Osti, including Horn and Globocnik were committed only by my orders, and are not subordinate to any of the members of Staff W, or had to take orders from Staff W.
Q. Witness, I want to touch on a question of relations between Office Group D and the other office groups. As I remember it, you said that you personally, because of Sauckel's orders, were used by Himmler only in questions of allocation of labor of inmates, and had been put above Gluecks because Himmler wanted a strong man to face Sauckel and stand up to Sauckel.
A. Did I understand you correctly? I said nothing of that. Sauckel's orders had nothing to do with my appointment. All I said was, it is possible that Himmler made his decision for that reason, because he was afraid that Sauckel after his appointment as Plenipotentiary for the Allocation of Labor in Germany might possibly reach out to the concentration camps. To prevent that, he put somebody above Gluecks-whom did not seem tough enough- and also saw that his official rank in the inspectorate was not sufficiently high, and he wanted to assign a higher office, which is the reason why he concentrated the allocation of labor into a higher office. But Himmler's fears were not justified. Sauckel never appeared in our offices and he worked on a completely different field.
Q. Quite so, witness, but I did not say that Himmler's fears were justified. But to sum up briefly, I think I said the same as you did.
Now I want another explanation in connection with this, this very specified order which was given to you personally. Surely, certain conditions resulted for the relations between other office groups and office group D?
A. No; no relations resulted from this.
Q. Thank you very much, witness. Now there is another question. You ordered Baier at one time to inspect the enterprises in the Litzmannstadt Ghetto? That is correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What did Baier and his escorts have to do there?
A. After Himmler had ordered that the Litzmannstadt Ghetto should be transformed into a concentration camp I, on January 1944, detailed Baier and Volk to go there; as I did not know conditions there they were to inform themselves and Baier was to look into the books as far as that was possible and thereby study the whole structure of the enterprise there, and report to me. That was the order. In other words, I wanted to be informed on the overall situation, because I could not go there myself.
Q. Now, please tell us what you mean by "overall situation." Perhaps I could ask you: Do you mean concerning the enterprise there?
A. Yes, of course; nothing else was necessary.
Q. One of my colleagues was answered by you yesterday that you did not know for certain what suggestion or what report was handed to you. Is that correct, or did I misunderstand you?
A. No, I know very well that the two of them advised me not to take over these enterprises.
Q. Now, from that term "Office Group W," which now has become a little clearer, perhaps as far as the economic and legal commercial aspects are concerned, we have seen, as a matter of course, that things overlapped up to a point.
Reich funds were used for W enterprises. Is that correct?
A. Reich credits? Yes.
Q. No, witness, I want to aim at something else. Wehrunachts tickets for railroads, automobiles, etc.
A. Yes, that happened when we built up the organization. The enterprises were housed in Reich property and the separation according to members of the Waffen-SS, soldiers and civilian employees, as far as expenditures were concerned, was not always made very strict there. With the result that the Reich, apart from the credits, would, without intention, take part in the expenditure of all enterprises against its will, so to speak. I recall that Baier studied that point and investigated it. I know that an examination of all this expenditure of the Reich was made and he found, as far as the members of the WaffenSS were concerned, who, although they worked as assistant workers in enterprises, were also paid by the Reich. The supply of trucks, travel expenses, of military personnel, and other items of that sort, were spotted by him in order to compensate the Reich afterwards. That reached quite a sum of money at the time. I believe it concerned five or six million Reichsmarks-which in this manner was paid back to the Reich from the enterprises. And on the basis of cleaning up this business, Gaier made the suggestion, which was carried out, that strict instructions were issued concerning the future payments of such expenses. From that time onward, enterprises had to pay immediately for all those overheads of the Reich.
Q. Witness, on direct examination you mentioned the Mattoni Limited. Did the DWB own the shares of that enterprise?
A. Yes, the majority of shares had been purchased by some bank--I believe the Deutsche Bank.
Q. Can you recall, witness, that Baier, who, on the occasion of auditing visit, came across the fact that some agency endeavored to buy the balance of the shares?
Can you tell us by and large what all this was about?
A. I can recall that only very dimly. I cannot recall the details.
Q. Then perhaps I might point out to you the balance of the shares belonged to a certain Eugen or Egon Mattoni; that Mattoni was, I believe, a homosexual and as such, was in a concentration camp. Can you recall the matter now?
A. Yes, I do but I do not recall the details. It is possible that the intention existed at the time to buy the balance of the shares. All I know is that actually, it was not bought.
Q. Can you not recall, witness, that this suggestion was made by Baier because he thought that it was impossible to buy shares from an inmate of a concentration camp, from a man, that is, who for all practical intents and purposes is exposed to the power of the Reich?
A. It is possible that Baier made that suggestion.
DR. FRITSCH: I have no further questions, Your Honors.
MR. ROBBINS: Before another counsel starts examination I respectfully request the Tribunal to strike from the record the witness's remarks about Russian domination of German's in the Russian zone. This witness has no personal knowledge of the conditions in the Russian zone. He has been incarcerated in Nurnberg for great many months and he cannot possible have any knowledge, and I feel that it has no place in the record of this case.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion to expunge the unsolicited comment of the witness mill be granted.
DR. GAWLIK(for defendants Volk and Bobermin): I would like to question this witness on behalf of Dr. Volk first of all, and a few preliminary questions first .....
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Witness, since when have you known Dr. Volk?
A. Roughly, since 1941.
Q. What were the tasks which Dr. Volk had as Bobermin's representative in the Office III A IV, and as liaison man between III A IV and III A?
A. He was head of the Offices and his tasks were legal matters. He also maintained liaison between the agencies in Berlin and Bobermin, where Bobermin was later on.
Q. What were the activities of Dr. Volk as the head of the legal Department, with Staff W?
A. He had to work on notary files and deal with the legal matters concerning DWB, and the branches in all matters of civil law. He had to advise them.
Q. Did Dr. Volk have the legal matters of all branches in his charge, or did some of them have legal experts of their own?
A. The larger branches had their own legal experts, and all legal matters could not be dealt with by the legal staff of Staff W -which was Dr. Volk.
Q. In particular, DEST, DAW, and DVA... did they have their own legal experts?
A. Yes, they had their own legal experts.
Q. Did the defendant Dr. Volk, therefore, work on behalf of the DEST or DAW at all?
A. No. He did not have anything to do there because they had their own legal experts.
Q. Witness, can you comment on the question whether Dr. Volk could have been aware of conditions within the various enterprises of DEST and DAW?
A. On the basis of his official activity these conditions could not reach him because he had nothing to do with the management of the enterprises, as he had no contact with the enterprises themselves. His work took place at an office desk.
Q. Did the defendant Dr. Volk have any right to issue orders towards the Office Chiefs of Office Group W?
A. No, he did not.
Q. Can you give us a reason for this answer, witness? Was it impossible for him because of his rank?
A. Well, first of all because of his official activities as the legal assistant, and, after all, I would issue the orders for enterprises, and I don't think his rank would come into this. He could not be concerned with these questions at all.
Q. Was Dr. Volk ever chief of Office Group W?
A. No.
Q. What were the tasks which were given to Dr. Volk in his capacity as your personal expert?
A. He assisted me in dealing with all private and official matters. He would work independently on all requests and other applications which would reach me because of my rank and position, to a large extent. Then he looked after my taxes, and all questions of tutelage.
Q. In that capacity did he have to do some work which was connected with your position as Main Office Chief, or Chief of Amt W, or were they all purely personal matters?
A. In that position he only worked on very personal matters. He was, so to speak, my private secretary ... really.
Q. Did the defendant Volk take part when the Office Chiefs would have conferences?
A. No.
Q. Is it possible, therefore, to charge defendant Volk with some knowledge about the Office Groups which you, yourself, had?
A. In no sense of the word. I never discussed these matters with Volk.
Q. Did volk's activity as your personal export ... did that claim most of his time?
A. Certainly, in the last two years.
Q. What were the results, that would arise, as far as Volk's activities with DWB were concerned?
A. Under those condition she could not deal very extensively with the concerns of DWB as he could have done between 1941 and 1942, but the work for DWB, after his connection had been discontinued, especially in the field of legal matters,became less and less. The main weight of work in his sphere shifted to his working on all matters which would reach me, and which I could not work on personally.
Q. Now,about concentration camps. Was it part of Volk'stask to establish, to maintain, or to look after, concentration camps and labor camps?
A. He had nothing to do with that.
Q. But Office Groups A and D, when concentrations camps were installed and set up, collaborated?
A. No.
Q. Did defendant Dr. Volk have anything to do with Office Groups A to D, as far as his official tasks were concerned?
A. No.
Q. Did Staff W have the task to help in purchasing sites for concentration camps, or find sites for concentration camps?
A. No, that was impossible because the purchasing of sites for concentration camps was a Reich matter, and these questions were worked on by the Legal Department of Office Group A, but not by the economic enterprises of Economic Group DWB.
Q. In 1942 to 1944 there were negotiations on the acquiring of sites in Stutthof, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. In what capacity did Volk participate in those negotiations?
A. As the business manager of the Settlement Ltd. (Gemeinnutzige Liedlungs GnBH).
Q. Did the negotiations carried out by Volk concern the purchase of land for the concentration camps?
A. No. These questions, as I said before, would not be dealt with by the legal expert of Staff W, but by the legal expert of Office A. I believe that office was called AV, as far as I can remember.
Q The Prosecution so far as the Stuffhof relations are concerned have called this a typical task for Staff-W, is that correct?
A No.
Q Now about the Litzmannstadt Ghetto I shall have to ask a few questions. What was the reason why the defendant Dr. Volk took part in these negotiations?
A Volk was to inform himself in the Litzmannstadt conditions, and to report to me in what legal manner the enterprise could be organized in the event of a transfer to a concentration camp later on. That was his task.
Q What was Volk's attitude when he reported to you on these negotiations?
A He advised me strongly to have anything to do with this matter.
Q Was this Litzmannstadt Ghetto transformed into a concentration camp?
A No.
Q Did it not take place because of Volk's attitude in the matter?
A No, because he did not have any influence on that matter. The decision came from Himmler.
Q The Prosecution has maintained that the defendant Dr. Volk in January 1944 had attempted to transform the Litzmannstadt Ghetto into a concentration camp in order to secure it for the Osti, is that correct?
A No, it would not have been sufficient to do so, because the documents show quite clearly that the order came from Himmler; for I sent Volk and Baier there as my representatives in order to obtain the information, and when they returned they both reported to me, and advised me strongly not to vote for the transformation.
Q Do you know anything about the fact whether or not Dr. Volk informed himself about conditions in concentration camps?