Q Did the defendant, Dr. Bobermin, in any way support the Reinhardt Action which was carried out against the Jews in the General Government or did he participate in this Action in any manner?
A No, nothing of that kind has come to my knowledge.
Q Did you ever discuss with the defendant, Dr. Bobermin, this Reinhardt Action?
A No.
Q I now hand to you Document NO-1015. It is in Document Book 16, on page 92 of the German document book. It is Exhibit 451. I now ask you to make a statement to the question whether the defendant, Dr. Bobermin, knew of the origin of the funds.
MR. ROBBINS: The letter is signed by Dr. Bobermin, and I hardly think the witness is competent to answer Whether Bobermin had knowledge of the source of the funds that are stated in the letter signed by Bobermin.
THE PRESIDENT: It is impossible for one witness to tell what was in another's mind. If you want to ask him whether he ever spoke to Dr. Bobermin about the fund, but it is not proper to ask him what Dr. Bobermin knew.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I asked the witness for facts from which the knowledge or the failure of knowledge of the defendant, Dr. Bobermin can be established. The witness was not to answer the question if Dr. Bobermin had knowledge of it, but if any facts are contained in this document and if he can inform the Tribunal of any facts which could be essential to establish the fact if Dr. Bobermin did or did not have knowledge.
THE PRESIDENT: I think I could answer the question by looking at the document myself, but go ahead and ask the witness. He may answer.
A The Action Reinhardt has been mentioned in this document, and it could be assumed that Bobermin consequently had knowledge of what the Action Reinhardt actually was. Apparently he only heard of its designation by the request of Sturmbannfuehrer Wippert to turn over the 1.2 million zloty to Melmer.
I am of the opinion that if Bobermin had had exact knowledge of what the Action Reinhardt really was and what was behind it, then he would have classified this letter to Hohberg as top secret. However, he sent it as an open letter through the mail. If he had been informed, he would have had to classify this document differently.
THE PRESIDENT: You see, this answer illustrates exactly the point which the Prosecution has been raising. The witness is speculating and guessing and putting his own version on the letter in spite of the fact that you said that you wanted him to give you facts. He says it could be supposed; it is possible. These are not facts.
DR. GAWLIK: In this connection he states the fact that such a letter would have had to be classified as top secret. It is not the task of the witness to draw the conclusions. However, that is a fact which he has stated with regard to this letter.
MR. ROBBINS: Your Honor, it seems to me it goes a long way to prove that Action Reinhardt was not nearly as secret as the witness has testified to.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is making your argument for you, Dr. Gawlik. All of these conclusions are conclusions that you might draw in making your argument, your final argument. You had better save something for yourself.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q I now come to the count of the indictment dealing with slave labor. Was it part of the tasks of W-II to participate in the planning and execution of plans dealing with the supplying of plants with labor and the labor which was to be achieved by concentration camp inmates?
A No.
Q Did the defendant, Dr. Bobermin, ever exercise such an activity?
A No.
Q Witness, you have already given us the number of the plants which were directed by Amt W-II. There were approximately four hundred plants, is that correct?
A Yes, there were at the most four hundred plants.
Q Will you please tell the Tribunal just in how many of these plants concentration camp labor was used?
AAmong all these plants, concentration camp labor was only used in Golleschau because the remainder of the brick works was distributed all over the vast eastern space and only free labor was used in them.
Q That was the cement factory at Golleschau?
A Yes.
Q Did the defendant, Dr. Bobermin, ever order the use of prisoners' labor in these Portland Cement factories at Golleschau?
A No. I gave that order, but he reported to me that at Golleschau as a result of the conscription to the armed forces these plants would have to be shut down. As a result of this, I ordered the use of prisoner labor from Auschwitz.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be a recess until a quarter of two.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess until 1345.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1350 hours, May 23, 1947).
THE MARSHAL: Person's in the courtroom will take their seats.
Military Tribunal II is again in session.
OSWALD POHL - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. GAWLIK (For Defendants Volk and Bobermin):
Q. Witness, before recess we discussed the utilization of prison labor at Golleschau. In summarizing, I would like to say, is it correct that the defendant, Dr. Bobermin, suggested that the plant should be closed down?
A. Yes.
Q. And that you personally ordered the use of prison labor?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Could the Defendant Bobermin prevent the execution of the order which you gave?
A. No, he was unable to do that.
Q. Was the commitment of prisoners at Golleschau, was that not more than a temporary measure?
A. It would have been discontinued when the former condition and the employment of free labor could have again been restored, and would have been the latest at the end of the war.
Q. Did the Defendant Bobermin ever request that prisoners, concentration camp inmates, should be employed at any of the numerous other plants which were subordinate to your organization?
A. No, he did not do that.
Q. Who was responsible for the feeding of the prison labor of the concentration camp inmates who worked at Golleschau?
A. The prisoners at Golleschau were not billeted in a labor camp, but they were quartered in an outside camp of the concentration camp Auschwitz. This camp was subordinated to detachment leader of the concentration camp Auschwitz, and the branch camp was administered by the administration of the concentration camp Auschwitz. It was responsible for the billeting, the feeding, and other requirements of the prisoners.
Q. Who was charged with the selection of the prisoners who were used at Golleschau?
A. Like in all camps, this was the task of the camp commanders.
Q. Who had supervision over the prisoners while they worked at Golleschau?
A. The plant manager.
Q. Who fixed the working hours?
A. The working hours were set according to the requirements of the plant, and they were fixed by the plant manager.
Q. Were not the working hours fixed, generally fixed?
A. The general fixing of the working hours through me only extended to the W plants. I do not know at the moment if it extended to the plants of the W-II who usually were only filled with free labor, and if this regulation was carried out there, it is possible that it also extended to the plant at Golleschau. In that case I would have been competent for fixing the working hours. However, at Golleschau there were also free workers who were employed there. I am unable to say that exactly.
Q. Could the defendant, Dr. Bobermin, take care of the details of the plant at Golleschau?
A. Since his office was located at Posen, and since he supervised four hundred other plants, he was unable to take care of the details in connection with the plants. This included Golleschau.
Q. Can you tell us anything about how far the work at Golleschau was removed from the concentration camp Auschwitz?
A. I do not know that exactly, but I don't think it was one hundred kilometers. It was approximately eighty to one hundred kilometers.
Q. Could the Defendant Bobermin when he visited Bolleschau have knowledge of anything that happened in the concentration camp Auschwitz?
A. No, not if he visited Golleschau.
Q. Did you ever hear that the inmates who were working at Golleschau were treated inhumanely?
A. I personally did not hear anything about it.
Q Were the working conditions in Golleschau in any way less favorable then the working conditions in any other concrete factory?
A. I visited Golleschau approximately on two occasions, and I did not see any other working conditions there than those which existed in the other concrete factories.
Q. Can you recall that the plant manager of Golleschau on one occasion had difficulties with the Party because of the treatment of prisoners?
A. I can remember that the Gauleiter of this area, because of some matter involving Golleschau, turned to me on one occasion, but I do not know anymore in what connection that was. In any case the employment of prisoners was involved.
Q. Could this have been the use of the plant bath for the prisoners?
A. I cannot tell you that anymore today.
Q. In the plants which were subordinated to Amt W-2 were any more prisoners of war employed there?
A. No.
Q. Did the defendant Dr. Bobermin have anything to do with the labor allocation of prisoners of war?
A. No.
Q.Did the defendant Dr. Bobermin have anything to do with the planning and the execution of plans which intended to deport inhabitants of occupied territories to the Reich?
A. No.
Q. Do you know whether the defendant Bobermin ordered such measures to be carried out?
A. No, I do hot know anything about it.
Q. Would you have known if the defendant Bobermin had such measures carried out?
A. Yes, by all means.
Q. Who confiscated the East Construction Limited?
A. The chief in the Four Year Plan under Goering.
Q. Can you tell the Tribunal that the position of that company was and to what organization it belonged?
A. The Chief Trusteeship Agency (Ost) belonged to the Four Year Plan whose chief was Goering. The Chief Trusteeship Agency (Ost) was the agency which ordered all confiscation in the occupied eastern territories.
MR. ROBBINS: The translation on that came through as "Dest". Is that not a mistake?
INTERPRETER: If your Honor please, the interpreter said "Ost" meaning East.
BY DR. GAWLIK: (Counsel for the defendants Volk and Bobermin):
Q. Witness, in order to avoid any mistake, will you please tell us once more the designation of the agency which carried out these confiscations?
A. It was the Chief Trusteeship Agency (Ost) which belonged to the Four Year Plan which was directed by Goering. The Chief Trusteeship Agency (Ost) had carried out all the confiscations in the Eastern Occupied Territories , and it administered the plants and estates which had been confiscated.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honors, I have just heard that the word "confiscation" as used by the translator is not correct. It should not mean "a confiscation of property; it should mean the "seizure;" the property remained the same. The "confiscation" translation is not correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there a difference?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, Your Honor. In the case of confiscation, the property is lost; then the property is taken away from its former owner. In the case of siezure the property remained in the hands of he owner but the owner has only limited rights. The property remained unchanged.
MR. ROBBINS: May I say that the translator doesn't agree with the counsel's own translation. I suggest that this is something the witness had better testify to than Counsel, anyway.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the German word that is in controversy?
DR. GAWLIK: "Beschlagnahme."
THE PRESIDENT: What does it mean?
DR. GAWLIK: "Beschlagnahme" means the limited rights over property -- and I do not say "confiscation." "Einziehung" means when the property is taken away."
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will understand it to mean a seizure or taking possession of as distinguished from confiscation.
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Witness, when were these plants seized?
A. After the completion of the campaign in Poland, That was at the end of 1939.
Q. That was at a time when the defendant Dr. Bobermin was not even a member of Amt A-III , or W-II?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Is it correct that you were appointed general trustee of the brick plant?
A. Yes, that is correct?
Q. Please describe to the Tribunal why you were appointed general trustee of this brick plant.
A. My appointment as general custodian took place at the suggestion of Himmler, who, in order to secure the requirements of material for his settlement plants, for the construction of SS and Police bases in the Eastern area, wanted to have the necessary construction materials set aside. That is why I as appointed general trustee of the Eastern Brick Works. The brock works were taken out of the Chief Trustee's Office for the East, and they were administered by me in a special type of administration. And Bobermin was the man who constructed this agency.
Q. What type of workers were used in the plants on the Eastern Construction Works:
Was it Free Labor, or were these people prisoners?
A. In these plants only Free workers were employed.
Q. What were the working conditions in the plants of the Eastern Construction plants?
A. The working conditions were the same as in all other private industries.
Q. What do you know about the improvements within the plants which were carried out in the plants which were under the direction of Amt W-II?
A. After the completion of the campaign in Poland almost all the plants were shut down, and after they had teen shut down for so long a period of time -- also through the effects of the war -- they naturally had suffered. Here we dealt primarily with old plants which were very much in need of improvement.
We therefore primarily saw to it that these plants were again activated, resumed production. For this purpose repairs had to be carried out. The machines either had to be repaired or frequently they had to be replaced. The furnaces had to be renewed and repaired, and in almost all of the plants extensive repairs had to be carried out. This work was carried out by the orders of Bobermin.
Q. Were there German labor camps or concentration camps in Hungary?
A. No.
Q. In Hungary were any economic enterprises subordinated to the defendant Bobermin?
A. No.
Q. I want to summarize this material. Was it part of the tasks of the defendant Bobermin--
MR. ROBBINS: I don't see any need for Counsel to summarize in the form of a question to this witness. He has asked him at great length about Bobermin's duties, and there is no need to put a very leading, general question in the way of a summary. He can save that for argument, I suggest.
THE PRESIDENT: Why don't you let the Tribunal summarize instead?
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Was the defendant Dr. Bobermin appointed as Dest leader officially?
A. No.
Q. Was he an active leader of the Waffen SS?
A. No, he was a leader, an SS officer in the reserve.
Q. What effect did the agreement have which Bobermin concluded with the Eastern Construction in his position in the SS?
A. He did not have any influence at all.
DR. GAWLIK: That is all. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: How many more counsel are there who have not cross examined? This is the last one?
DR. FROESCHMANN (for the defendant Mummenthey): Yes, your Honor, I believe that I am the last counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: Last but not least.
BY DR. FORESCHMANN:
Q. Witness, Mummenthey was working also at the Dest. He was the co-manager in plants and affiliated branches where prisoners were employed. I would like to ask you with regard to the allocation of prisoner labor as far as that subject has not been discussed up to now. Can you tell me, Witness, why the increased number of prisoners was used in the years of the war from 1940 to 1944?
A. The increased number of prisoners which were used in the Dest works after 1940 was the result of the conversion of these plants for armament purposes, which made it necessary to employ an increased number of prisoners. It was the actual task of the Dest works in the field of the producing of stones; and as the war progressed, this task did not occupy such importance anymore.
Q. Did the lack of workers in Germany play a decisive part in this?
A. It did not play such an important part because the Dest works were to a very large extent operated by prisoners.
Q. Were the details of the allocation of prisoner labor negotiated and dealt with between the managers of the Dest plant and the concentration camp commanders?
A. The questions of allocation of labor were, of course, dealt with by the plant managers; and they were discussed with the camp commanders.
Q. Did the plant managers have any influence on the camp commanders with regard to the procurement of inmate labor?
A. They could request the commander; they could tell the camp commander of their requirements of inmate labor; and they had to comply with the decision which was reached by the camp commander.
Q. Then were the plant managers limited to the possibility of pointing out to the commanders shortages in the allocation of inmate labor?
A. Yes, they could, of course, point out to the camp commander that the number of prisoners who had been furnished were not sufficient and that therefore the plants could not operate smoothly.
Q. Did any difficulties arise between the plant managers and their commanders because of the attitudes which were reached between the camp commanders and the plant managers with regard to the allocation of labor?
A. Yes, this was always the case; but I cannot tell you any details about this from my own knowledge.
Q. Can you remember if Dr. Salpeter reported to you about such difficulties?
A. I cannot remember that exactly.
Q. Did Mummenthey report to you about this?
A. Mummenthey told me on various occasions about these incidents.
Q. Was nothing done by you on the basis of these reports, for example, the transfer of the concentration camp commanders?
A. I cannot say exactly whether these incidents played a part in the transfer of commanders carried out by me. However, it is possible.
Q. Did Mummenthey make any suggestions to you which concerned the allocation of inmate labor?
A. In particular with Mummenthey I used to discuss this question more frequently because he was interested in it and because he asked me such questions.
Q. Were your suggestions passed on to Amtsgruppa D?
A. I cannot recall that exactly anymore.
Q. Can you remember the memorandum of the witness Engler you later on are alleged to have passed on to Amtsgruppe D?
A. Yes, I can remember it. However, I do not know exactly if this memorandum was passed on to Amtsgruppe D. I don't know if I was the one who passed it on.
Q. Can you recall if any suggestions were made in order to improve conditions with regard to the work which was done in stone quarries?
A. Yes, this question was also discussed outside of the Dest on various occasions; and Himmler himself discussed it and the positive points. According to this, it was to be permitted that in the case of good achievements and a good working record prisoners were to receive special advantages in the factories. This was to go so far that a release of the prisoners should take place and that they should be employed in the plants afterwards. I can recall exactly several cases where such prisoners were actually released and the prisoners continued to work in these plants as free workers and employees. That also happened at the Dest. In the case of the Dest, I know that it even constructed buildings for this type of prisoner who had been released from confinement; and I have seen that myself at Oranienburg.
Q. Did Mummenthey also make suggestions to you which concerned the reimbursement for prisoners?
A. Yes, I also discussed that subject with him. Of all the plant managers Mummenthey was probably the one who was very active in this field in particular and with whom I discussed these questions the most. That is why I can remember these matters very well.
Q. May I conclude from your answer that Mummenthey apparently had a socially founded attitude with regard to the inmate prisoner question?
A. Yes, without any doubt he showed such an attitude at the time.
Q. Do you know in this connection that Mummenthey not only made suggestions to your agency for the release of prisoners but that he also requested that through another agency directly?
A. I cannot say exactly if he made requests to other agencies for the release of other prisoners.
Q. Now, witness, let's turn to another complex, and I want to ask you a few questions. Whom did you appoint toward the end of January 1939 as representative of the Dest while Ahrends was away on leave?
A. As far as I can remember Ahrends was succeeded by Salpeter.
Q. At the time did Mummenthey become auditor of the Dest and was he appointed as authorized clerk for the Dest?
A. I cannot say that exactly; but I assume that that happened at the time.
Q. Can you tell the Tribunal what special assignment Dr. Salpeter received from you?
A. Dr. Salpeter was to assist the Dest in its construction, which, as a result of its rather unfortunate selection of its site of work produced considerable difficulties. He was again to improve the conditions there; that is to say, he was to rectify the mistakes which had been made previously. These were the mistakes which had been made in the construction and development of the Dest and were based on the fact that the plant was located too far from the clay pit. It was felt of this that there were considerable difficulties and high financial demands which put the plant into a very difficult position during the first few years of its existence. Therefore, the senior business manager Ahrends was dismissed; and he was succeeded by Dr. Salpeter. Dr. Salpeter was to try to bring matters again up to standard.
Q. Who was to carry out the technical aspect of tais reorganization?
A. For this purpose I had appointed a certain Schondorf. He was a very well-known and efficient brick expert who until that time had directed the brick building school at Lippe. He then became the technical director of the Dest. And he was under my direct orders.
Q. For this purpose did Schondorf receive any authorities from you and did he have more authorities than the other directors?
A. Yes, since the removal of the difficulties was primarily in the technical field, I gave Schondorf special authority as the plant director.
Q. Was he directly responsible to you?
A. Yes, Schondorf had the right to see me directly on all matters and he only had to report to me and was responsible only to me.
Q. Was a reorganization of this plant carried out on the basis of written plans which had been worked out to the smallest details?
A. First of all we were concerned with the plant at Oranienburg. However, in the case of this plant, like all the others where detailed technical plans were carried out by Schondorf, Schondorf was the person who was responsible for the technical construction and for the inactivation of the plant at Oranienburg and all the other works; and he was solely responsible to me.
Q. In the course of your direct examination you have already stated that these plants were mechanized to a very high degree. I shall now ask you what was the purpose of this mechanization?
A. First of all, as I have already said, we wanted to show the German clay industry certain exemplary plants; and we also wanted to economize on labor.
Q. Salpeter was then drafted into the army. During this period of time did Mummenthey represent him in connection with a certain Opperbeck?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. When in the year 1943 Salpeter returned, was Salpeter still to the outside the business manager of the Dest although he took over another office?
A. Yes, he continued to bear this title for some time afterwards.
Q. At that period of time were Schondorf and Schwarz appointed as the co-business managers of the Dest?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. In the year 1941 it is alleged that the affiliated branches of the Dest are alleged to have been decentralized to a very large extent and to have attained a certain independence. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that the aim of this decentralization?
A. It tried to obtain an easier management of the plants which became more difficult if they were directed from Berlin. For this reason considerable authority was extended and transferred to the plant managers on the spot.
Q. Did you order the completion of armament industries in some places of the Dest?
A. In the case of the Bohemia I did this personally; and I can remember that exactly. However, I cannot think of any other plants at the moment. It merely was the Reich Ministry of Aviation which was interested in the large working halls of the Dest and which carried its leading firms there.
Q. Witness, was this group of business managers subordinated to Mummenthey, Schondorf, and Schwarz, the so-called office administration of Amt W-I?
A. Yes, that is correct. I negotiated these matters with the person who dealt with this special sphere. I called Schondorf to come and see me when I wanted to discuss technical matters. I called Mummenthey when business matters had to be discussed; and I called Schwarz whenever matters had to be discussed pertaining to the plants.
That is how the work was distributed among the three men. Each one of them was responsible for his field of work. He was alone responsible for it to me.
Q The order to call this group a collegium--did the expression that you have used yesterday, "primus inter pares", also belong to that?
A Yes. Not quite in that sense, however, because I must say here of Schondorf's position, as a result of the large number of technical questions concerned, his influence was much stronger and there were two first men.
Q Now, I come to some final questions. Witness, why was this divided into Amts ruppen and why were these groups provided with the title of a chief of an Amt?
A I have already repeatedly pointed out that the economic enterprises which are listed on the chart were reproduced by me exactly as well as the remaining organizational units which were subordinated to me. That was solely in order to be able to hook over these things more clearly. To make comparison, it is just like a closet with many shelves, where many shelves were the soldiers and way on the bottom the business men. Now, because these people happened to be located within the WVHA and because I might have been able to see the difference between many people who were around there, it was not so easy for them to keep things apart and to see the difference between the military set up plants, just like the commercial enterprises. I therefore did this in order to simplify the system; and that is why I chose this form. This would have been changed at the latest at the end of the war; and all these plants would have been placed under an independant; general administration. It would have had a general director at its top.
Q You just state the difference to us between the business men and soldiers. Was not Mummenthey both a soldier and a business man?
A While he received his salary from his firm, he was a retired soldier.
Q. As I understand it, the relationship could exist between General of the Waffen SS, and Mummenthey was a Sturmbannfuehrer. That is, were you in a position to give orders to him?
A. Well, the relationship existed in any case. As a soldier he was subordinated to me. However, he was also subordinated to me as business manager.
Q. That is what I wanted to find out. You could issue orders to Mummenthey by virtue of your position as General of the Waffen SS and Mummenthey as Sturmbannfuehrer?
A. Yes.
Q. Could there be a relationship, between you as civil servant insofar as you were chief of the WVHA and Mummenthey was the chief of an Amt and, thirdly, could there be a business relationship between you insofar as you were business manager of the DWB and Mummenthey was business manager of the Dest? Is that correct?
A. No, that is much too complicated. Only in the superior relationship which existed here was the last one you mentioned here. That was the one on the commercial basis. That was where Mummenthey was business manager of the Dest and I was his chief. That was the only one that could have existed.
Q. And the DWB was the holding company?
A. Yes.
Q. And the Dest was one of its affiliated branches?
A. Yes.
Q. And the Dest had affiliated companies, the various plants?
A. No. The Dest did not have any affiliated branch. The Dest had plants. There was a holding company, the DWB, and the DWB had affiliated companies. One of the affiliated companies was the Dest. The Dest, of course, consisted of several plants. However, these plants were not in the position of an affiliated branch. They were just part of the works.
We had Mauthausen first and Oranienburg, Flossenberg and so on.
Q. This morning you have already stated that by virtue of the Fuehrer principle you in the WVHA were the only one who had the right to issue orders and these orders naturally had to be observed by everybody who was subordinated to you. Did I understand you correctly?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. To a question which my colleague put to you and you answered yesterday, the question was, "Whether you could imagine that anybody would have opposed your orders," and in that connection you stated, "That you could not imagine that," is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. I now would like to go one step further. I don't want to force you to answer, if you do not want to answer; I will ask you one question anyhow, what would have happened if somebody would have opposed one of your orders?
A. Then I would have to tell you that he would have been shot.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Thank you. Your Honor, I do not have any further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: I have some questions.
Q. When did you first find out that it was the national policy of the Reich to exterminate the Jews?
A. Your Honor, I can not give you the exact date. In the course of time, that is to say, in the course of 1943 I formed this knowledge. However, I do not have any official document with me.
Q. Not before 1943?
A. No, sir.
Q. When did you join the SS, was it in 1934?
A. I joined the SS in 1934.
Q. When did you join the National Socialist Party?
A. 1926.
Q. So that it was nine years --- it was seventeen years after you had joined the Party that you found that the extermination of the Jews was a National policy?
A. Your Honor, neither in 1926, nor in 1934, nor in 1940 or 1941 had it ever become known to me that the government had decided on the extermination of the Jews.
Q. All right, I see. Did you ever hear of the Nuernberg Decrees?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know when they were adopted?