Q And you state that Georg Loerner as an official of the Verwaltungsamt obtaining clothing for the General or Allgemeine SS?
A I have already described it in such a way as I still remember. We were not part.
Q Excuse me, just answer the question, yes or no. You say, you did not have anything to do with clothing the Allgemeine SS?
A The delivery was carried out by the Reich Ordnance Agencies as far as I can remember. I don't know in which respect Loerner is supposed to have worked. I don't know if the orders were routed through his office; that is possible, but I don't know that exactly. I know for certain they were furnished by the Reich Quartermaster.
Q But it is possible that they were routed through your office V-3 of the Verwaltungsamt?
A That is possible to say.
Q Is it also possible that the clothing for the concentration camp inmates were routed through Office V-3?
A Later on, when they became Death Head Units, then they came within the large sphere of supplies, but how it was in the years 1934 and and 1935, I cannot tell you any more exactly. I only know that at that time these units wore a completely different type of uniform.
Q Excuse me, I am not talking about the Death Head units or the concentration camp guards. I am talking about the clothing for the inmates which was handled by the Verwaltungsamt.
A No, the administrative office had nothing to do with it.
Q You stated that Office V-3 in the Verwaltungsamt had nothing whatever to do with clothing for inmates.
A Up to now we were talking about the furnishing of uniforms. Now, you are talking about the clothing for inmates. I cannot remember that at the time we took care of providing the inmates with clothing. I do not think so.
Q Is it not possible that the clothing for the inmates was routed through V-3?
A No, I don't think so. At the time, that is to say, before the war, we still had sufficient clothing on hand and raw materials, so I cannot even imagine what work we could have done in that respect. I believe that this clothing was furnished directly by the camp administration. However, I cannot exactly recall that.
Q During the years 1935 to 1938, during the existence of the Verwaltungsamt, you did audit the expenses of the concentration camps and the books of the camps, is that correct?
A Yes, well, we compiled the budget. I cannot tell you today if the auditing was carried out by us or by the Reich Auditing Court. I am not so well informed any more and I am not certain any more about those things. It was a time when things changed frequently and I cannot testify as to such with 100% certainty. I have already stated that from 1936 on we included the budget of the death head units and the concentration camps into the Reich Budge which we represented. That is correct. Until 1936 it was represented by Eicke himself with the provincial government in whose district the concentration camp was located.
Q It was even 1936, wasn't it, referring to the document which is before you, it was at least as early as 1935, auditing of books of the concentration camps, referring to Roman Numeral I, subparagraph 5c?
A Well, I don't know exactly who carried out the auditing work.
Q You were chief of the Administration of the SS at that time, were you not? That is shown by the letter.
A Yes. I held that position, I believe, until April 1936, all the budget matters were handled personally by Eicke with the provincial governments. And in his staff of each provincial government he had a financial expert who, as far as I know also carried out the auditing work. We only set up our examining apparatus for acute tasks after 1936 when Vogt entered the office, and I cannot remember the men who worked for him.
Q Excuse me. I am not asking you for the men who worked for you. During this period from '36 to '38, when you were checking the books of the SS, is it not true that under the SS the concentration camps Sachsenhausen, Buchenwald, Flossenbuerg, Ravensbrueck, and Mauthausen were constructed?
A Yes, these camps were established in those years, between 1936 and 1942.
Q You checked on the expenses for the construction of these camps, did you not?
A Yes, they were included in the Reich budget.
Q And didn't Department V-4, building matters, construction matters, advise you in the checking of these figures?
AAt that time they had nothing to do with this construction. I said that until he left the office, Eicke had his own construction organization. Until that time V-4 had nothing to do with the construction of concentration camps.
Q You had something to do with it. You checked the accounts for the construction of the camps? You have just stated that.
A No, from 1936 we included the budget within the Reich Budget. In the auditing of the bills as far as I can recall, it was carried out at that time by the Reich Auditing Court.
Q Will you look at paragraph 5c under auditing office, where SS Troops for Special Tasks, Administrative Office, Administrative Office of Concentration Camps, doesn't that indicate that you as Administrative Chief of the SS in charge of the auditing office for special troops for special tasks also audited the books for the concentration camps, including the expenses for the construction?
A This can only involve the personal expenses, while the expenses arising out of the construction are not included. The construction expenses at that time did not originate with us, but with the Reich Construction Administration and the Reich Construction Administration would not have allowed us to audit them. I have already repeatedly pointed out that competent for all the construction of the special task units and the concentration camps until the year 1940 or 1941 was the Reich Construction Administration. That was the Reich Ministry of the Interior should have let itself be audited by a lower agency as the SS WVHA was with respect to the expenses arising out of construction work.
Q You stated that this simply refers to personnel expenses. What do you mean by that?
A Well, I am referring to payments, well, these administrative payments, salaries, expenses for trips, and other personal allowances.
Q That includes the salaries for the Death Head Units, who guarded the concentration camps?
A Yes.
Q Then in 1939 that office was reorganized and became a main office, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q I show you Document NO-620, which is in Document Book 2, which is a chart of this main office. What was the new office which was organized out of the Verwaltungsamt called?
A It was called Main Office, Construction and Administration, and Main Office of Budget and Economy.
Q You were the chief of this office?
A Yes.
Q Who was in charge of Amt I, and what were its functions?
AAmt I was subordinated to the then Oberfuehrer Loerner, Loerner, Georg.
Q And this later became Amtsgruppe A of the WVHA, did it not?
A Yes, this Amt I, later on became Amtsgruppe A and B; both offices were developed from this Amt I.
Q You refer to Office I, which was under -
A Well, the main Department I-1, I-2, later on developed into Amtsgruppe A, the Main Department I 3, I 4, I 6, and I A, later on, developed into Amtsgruppe B.
Q Are you referring to Amt I-5 which was under Burger, and was called "Prison Labor." Will you tell us what were the functions of that subdivision?
AAmt I-5 was to do with the regulation of allocation of labor, and the procurement of prisoners for Economic Enterprises. However, this work from Berlin did not function very smoothly, and this main department Amt I-5 was already removed from this main office after 2 or 3 months and turned over to the Inspectorate of concentration camps.
Q You say after two or three months. Do you remember the date?
A No, I can not give you the exact date any more.
Q Do you remember the year?
A Well, it was in '39 when this main office was established. The Main Office was established in February 1939. I assume that in April 1939 this main department was already removed from this organization because it did not function at all from Berlin.
Q Before we go into the date on which it was dissolved, will you tell us what the functions of this prison labor department were as to the date of 1939?
THE PRESIDENT: Where did you find the reference to "Prison Labor"?
MR. ROBBINS: It is in Document 620, Your Honor, the chart.
THE PRESIDENT: The chart submitted?
MR. ROBBINS: No, it is the chart of the construction and building Main Office, and the Administration and Economics. This was the office that was organized out of the Administrative Office in 1939. Will you tell us what the Prison Labor Office in your Main Office had to do?
THE WITNESS: This main department, I-5, was to regulate the procurement of prisoners for the Economic Enterprises, which at that time were subordinated to the supervision of the Main Office. It had no other tasks. This concerned enterprises which were located at Dachau, and which slowly developed in all the other camps. It was to regulate the use of prisoners in these plants, that was the task of the main department I-5.
Q You already told us that there were Economic Enterprises, or workshops in the concentration camps before 1939, as early as 1935 or '36, is that correct?
A Yes, these workshops, however, were subordinated directly and solely to the camp commandants.
Q And Office I-5 allocated the prison labor to the SS Industries?
A SS Industries did not yet exist at that time.
Q That is the Economic Enterprises or workshops?
A They were Economic Enterprises which existed at Dachau in 1939 or '38, rather, and they were located there for the DEST, which had been founded in 1938, that is the allocation of labor also in this respect. In the Spring of 1939 at the establishment of this main department I-5, the Economic Enterprises at Dachau and the DEST which was founded in 1938, were combined. It was to direct the allocation of prisoners, for these Enterprises too.
Q And as early as 1938 some of the industries or workshops in the concentration camps were put under your supervision?
A Yes. I already stated it was only the Economic Enterprises at Dachau which were placed in 1938 approximately under my supervision.
Q Who in the Administrative Office, or the Verwaltungsamt in 1938 helped you administer these workshops?
A In the beginning I did all the work by myself. In 1938 I did not have any collaborator in the Administrative Office and later on in the Main Office; my collaborators were the plant managers outside, where the plants were located.
Q In 1939 who in the Construction and Building Main Office, and Administration and Economic Main Office assisted you in administering these enterprises?
A Well, in 1939, in February '39 the work in these Main Offices was divided into certain fields. That was in Amt III-A, Salpeter, then in III-B, Moerkl; then in III-C Maurer, and in III-D Vogel, and then the Special Enterprises under Klein.
Q That is the defendant Klein?
A Yes.
Q And that was in 1939?
A In February 1939.
Q And who was in charge of III-A-1, which was the DEST, in 1939?
A It was then Sturmbannfuehrer Mummenthey.
Q And who was in charge of III-A-3, the Building Department, or, which was in charge of obtaining buildings?
A No. III-A-3 was the Public Hamestead and Settlement Limited, and Mummenthey was manager of that temporarily.
Q Will you refer to Office II-C which is concentration camps and police, and will you tell us what were the functions of that office?
A II-C?
Q Yes?
A Well, so far as I can recall this Main Department dealt with all matters. This was the Main Department 2-C, and it may be that in 1939, as I have already said, the building organization of Eicke was turned over to the WVHA, and this was the agency which since 1939 had occupied itself with the construction of concentration camps and police barracks. However, I can not remember that any more today.
Q The chart shows that Amt II-C was in charge of construction of concentration camps and barracks, does it not?
A Yes, it shows that. I believe in 1939 the construction agency of Eicke was dissolved. However, I can not give the exact date.
Q From that time on you were in charge of the construction of the concentration camps?
A Yes, I was personally in charge of Office II for some time because no suitable leader could be found, from 1941 and '42. Finally in 1941 Kammler came.
Q And when the WVHA was organized, Amtsgruppe-C was put in charge of the construction of camps, is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q And last week you were asked in regard to the construction of concentration camps, and what were the duties of the defendant Eirenschmalz. Counsel for Eirenschmalz asked the following question: "Witness, earlier this morning you spoke about the construction of gas chambers, but I am of the opinion together with my client that this question must be cleared once and forever, and in the interest of my client now. I ask you first, did Amt C-6, which was under Eirenschmalz carry out planning and establishment of prisoner-of-war camps, concentration camps, gas chambers, or crematories?
AAmt C-6 had nothing to do with planning or establishment.
Q In other words, nothing at all?
A No.
Q We would like to know now for sure who was in charge of the construction. I shall ask you again, did Amt C-6 have anything to do with this?
A I answer that Amt C-6 had nothing to do with this.
Q Is there anything you wish to add to that testimony today?
A No.
Q You do not wish to change it in any respect?
AAmts C-6, as I have already stated to the best of my recollection, had nothing to do with planning and construction.
Q Did it have anything at all to do with the checking of the construction of concentration camps?
A It was primarily a checking agency for constructions. It had to check the bills in agreement with the Reich Auditing Court, that was its principal task.
Q And that included concentration camps?
A Yes. I believe that this was the case, that they were checked too, later on.
Q And it included gas chambers and crematories?
A So far as the bills were presented and submitted, yes.
Q And they had to give their approval for the construction?
A No, Amt C-6 had nothing whatsoever to do with that, because the bills were only submitted for examination after the construction had already taken place; but I do not know even today whether these constructions like gas chambers and crematoria were planned by Amtsgruppe C by some subordinate agency, or some other one unknown to me. Even today I don't know that.
Q Will you look at your affidavit which you were reading this morning which is NO-2616, Exhibit 523 for identification, and refer to Paragraph 16.
A I beg your pardon, I don't have it here.
(The witness was given the affidavit.)
Q It states: "I remember that the Auschwitz Concentration Camp was built in 1943. This work was carried out by the local Construction Inspection Section (Construction Inspection Section Auschwitz), after the necessary allocations of material had been made to this Construction Inspection Section by Amtsgruppe C of the WVHA.
"17. The gas chamber installations and the crematoria in the Ausschwitz Concentration Camp was built by the method described in paragraph 16.
"18. The statement of accounts for these constructions were forwarded to Office VI of Amtsgruppe C for preliminary examination for the supreme Auditing Office of the Reich or else they were submitted to the auditors of Amt C-VI. That was the prescribed official channel for all Construction Inspections Sections which were responsible to Amtsgruppe C of the WVHA."
Then Paragraph 21: "Standartenfuehrer Frank Eirenschmalz was Chief of Office C-VI from February 1942 until May 1945. He had been an associate of mine since 3 February 1943 with interruptions. From January 1943 until May 1943 he was Deputy Chief of Amtsgruppe C."
And Paragraph 20: "The construction, that is to say, the extension of the Riga Concentration Camp was undertaken during the second half of 1942."
The last part of the paragraph says that it was carried out as described above in Paragraphs 16 and 19. Does that refresh your recollection with regard to Eirenschmalz with respect to gas chambers, crematoria, and concentration camps?
A Yes, I can not imagine anything else and have nothing to add in this respect. I assume that this is correct.
Q That C-VI was the authority for preliminary examinations of the building plans for the crematoria, gas chambers, and concentration camps?
A No, that is not correct, the preliminary examination of the building plans. Planning and accounting must be separated here. Amt C-VI had nothing to do with the planning, the planning for construction work, but after the construction had taken place and after the buildings had been completed it had to make a preliminary auditing of these accounts. However, it had nothing to do with the planning of the construction work. They did not know before what was planned and what construction was to take place. After the completion of the buildings, afterwards through the accounts and the bills which had been submitted for preliminary examination, they knew what had been built.
Q It is not correct to say, is it, that C-VI had nothing whatever to do with construction of concentration camps if they had to approve the expenses for the camps?
A In no way. They did not have to approve the expenses either. Amt C-VI in a certain way was in the end of all these things. When everything had been completed, when the construction had taken place and the money had been spent, then months later the documents for these constructions and funds which had been spent would arrive at Amt C-VI and they were audited there, it was examined whether the expenses kept within the framework of the budget and they were checked if they were in accordance with the regulations by the price administration. However, then the construction work could not be changed any more. It had already been completed.
Q Before we leave this affidavit I would like to refer to your testimony with regard to the Defendant Sommer. Last week you were asked this question: "What do you have to say with regard to the allegation of the Prosecution that Sommer had been a deputy chief of Amt D-II?
"A I do not know anything to the effect that he had ever been appointed to that position.
He was never the Deputy Chief of the office. I can also recall that he was never appointed deputy of the office."
Will you refer to Paragraph 22 of the affidavit which is in your hands which reads that Hauptsturmfuehrer Karl Sommer was deputy chief of Office D-II, labor allocations. That is what it says in the affidavit, does it not?
A Yes, that is quite correct. Hauptsturmfuehrer Karl Sommer was deputy in Amt D-II. That was very important, and I have thought over this matter. It does not say deputy of the chief of the office of Amt D-II, but he was one of the collaborators who just took over the work whenever the senior was lacking. Already because of his low grade and rank, and because of his duration in office he could not even be considered to be deputy of the office chief.
Q Will you just tell us which is correct, your statement to this court last week that Sommer was not deputy chief, or the statement in the affidavit that Sommer was deputy chief?
A It is not stated here that he was the deputy chief. Sommer was never the deputy of the chief of the office. I never heard that he had been appointed to that position.
DR. SEIDL (For Defendant Oswald Pohl): Your Honor, I once again have to point out a mistake in the translation which is contained in this affidavit. Under Paragraph 22 of the affidavit it is stated, Hauptsturmfuehrer Karl Sommer was deputy in the Office D-II. It is not stated that he was the deputy of the chief. In my opinion the English text of Paragraph 22 should read correctly, "Hauptsturmfuehrer Karl Sommer was deputy in Office D-II." I am not a linguist, but in my opinion the word "chief" should be omitted.
Q (By Mr. Robbins): Witness, is there a difference between a deputy in an office and a deputy of an office? Is there a difference?
A There is a very big difference. By that I mean to say when the Chief of an office goes away then he can tell the next senior in the office - they may have been several and may have changed - but he can tell him that in his absence he should give information, things of that kind, while the deputy of the chief of the office has a formal appointment and a certain position and pay which was never the case with Sommer.
Q That is not what you told the Court last week, is it, that Sommer's duties were? You did not tell the Tribunal that he was a deputy in the office?
A I never meant anything else. It is clearly expressed in this affidavit. He was a deputy in the office, and there may have been several deputies of that kind. That may have changed. A certain person could have been used to represent somebody else, but that is something completely different from what we called the deputy of a chief of an office. I was trying to clarify this difference. I have well thought it over, when I stated here in Paragraph 22, "deputy in the Office D-II," I can only say that it is unknown to me that Sommer, as shown of a list of persons in the Office D-II, had ever been deputy of the chief of that office.
MR. ROBBINS: Does the Court wish to recess at this time?
THE PRESIDENT: At any time you like.
MR. ROBBINS: My watch is a little fast.
Q (By Mr. Robbins): Before leaving this affidavit then, I would like to refer to your testimony with regard to Baier, the Defendant Baier rather. You stated, "I can not recall that any member of Staff W was appointed chief of the office," and you went ahead to testify that Baier was never Chief of Staff W. Will you refer to Paragraph 29 of this same affidavit. "Oberfuehrer Hans Baier was Chief of Stab W from 1934 to 1939."
THE PRESIDENT: 1943.
Q "1943 to 1945,", I am sorry. That is what the affidavit says, does it not?
A Yes.
Q Do you wish to modify your prior testimony?
A No. In this case also I have repeatedly pointed out that the entire designation of the economic enterprises as Amtsgruppe - and the absence of the designation which are usual with the other Amtsgruppen primarily and solely was selected by me in order to make the picture more simple and more clear, in order to make it easier for myself to overlook these things, and I did not want to give a military organizational position, which would have been in contradiction with the functions of the members of staff W from the point of view of commercial law.
Q You wrote letters to him addressed "Chief of Staff W," did you not?
A Naturally, of course.
Q Still he was not Chief of Staff W?
A I can not remember that a single member of Staff W ever had received a commission, that he was appointed chief of the office or anything similar. That was the title which we used.
Q Then your affidavit is incorrect, that Baier was Chief of Staff W?
A It depends on how you interpret that. The way we understood it is clear.
Q In other words, you can say on one day that Baier was Chief of Staff W and on the next day he was not chief of Staff W, and both statements would be correct, is that right? Yes or no?
A I have already stated that I will not modify my testimony here With that I have explained clearly what I mean. What is understood under Chief of Staff W, is perhaps very hard to describe. I have said that this was a form which was selected by us under consideration of the total organization of the WVHA. Otherwise, I would have had to add as Amtsgruppe X the whole organization of enterprises, and that would have made the picture very difficult to overlook. I was trying to avoid this, and that is why I used here the form of the other Amtsgruppen.
Q In other words, you can understand the same thing when two absolutely contradictory things, and at one point you say he was a chief, and at another point you say he was not chief?
THE PRESIDENT: This will be a convenient point to recess.
THE MARSHAL: This Tribunal is in recess until 13:45.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 27 May 1947)
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal No. 2 is again in session.
OSWALD POHL - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION - Continued
THE PRESIDENT: Some of the German counsel speak English, so if you will carry this message to the rest: Friday is an American holiday -Memorial Day--for the soldiers dead of all wars. I am afraid that about Thursday at twelve-thirty we will have to stop these proceedings and the Tribunal will spend the rest of the afternoon in conference. Don't take that too seriously....
I am talking to you now so that if you want to arrange a conference somewhere, you will have Thursday afternoon to do it, and Friday.
DR. GAWLICK: (Counsel for the defendants Volk and Bobermin) I would appreciate it if this tribunal would possibly give an order to the effect as to how far the Prosecution has the right, after having completed its case, to introduce new evidence, new exhibits.
The Prosecution now in the cross-examination, has introduced new documents--a few of them only in order to refresh the defendant's memory. However, the Prosecution has given exhibit numbers to these documents. Through that, these documents have become exhibits.
I believe that the Prosecution no longer has the right, after having completed its case, to introduce new evidence; or then, if the Prosecution does that, it must justify that action, because by that the rights of the Defense are prejudicial to the Defense. As far as the documents that the Prosecution have brought are concerned, we have our counter-evidence. We have examined them. However, if, until the end of the introduction of evidence, we have to assume that more and more material will be introduced by the Prosecution--then we are no longer in a position to bring the necessary counter-evidence.
MR. ROBBINS: May I say, your Honor, that we are making the search daily for documents which would rebut what the defendant says. We have some documents which we have kept for the purpose of refreshing his recollection and also for the purpose of impeaching the veracity of the witness. Certainly as documents come in from time to time and come to our attention, documents which rebut the evidence of the defense and contradict their testimony, it would seem that would be proper evidence which the Court should accept. I do not think that there is any rule that the prosecution cannot put in any evidence at the close of its case.
THE PRESIDENT: We are ready to rule, Mr. Robbins. When a witness is on the stand for cross examination, it is proper to show him any documents, first, to refresh his recollection, or, second, to impeach him, or to show that he is not testifying truly. When those documents have been shown to him, it is proper to number them as exhibits in order that the Court may have them in the record and determine whether or not in fact they do impeach the witness or refresh his recollection. This does not prevent the defense, however, in due time from denying the documents or bringing other documents or other witnesses to dispute them. It does not mean that the hands of the defense are tied or that it cannot go ahead and attack these documents. It has that opportunity. But these documents are properly admitted on cross examination, either to contradict the witness or to refresh his memory.
DR. GAWLICK: Then, Your Honor, I should appreciate it referring to these documents which receive an exhibit number by the prosecution, if the same regulation be applied to those documents; namely, that the documents be introduced to the defense twenty-four hours in advance. We have learned here, absolutely by chance, that those documents have certain mistakes in translation. Therefore, it is not possible for us to detect these mistakes without further difficulty during the proceedings. Furthermore, I should also like to draw to your attention one point in the German penal law which is important and which cannot be omitted in my opinion.
According to the German law a defendant who has introduced a new document, regardless of for what reason, has the right to ask for sort of a recess. That, according to my opinion, is correct, if these documents he shown to us twenty-four hours in advance.
THE PRESIDENT: You see, it is impossible to give them to you twenty-four hours in advance because in order to do that, you would have to know what the witness is going to say ahead of time. You wouldn't know whether he should be contradicted or not ahead of time. You can't tell that until he testifies. But you will be furnished translations of these documents; and if the translation is wrong or if you wish to attack these documents, you will have the chance to do that later.
DR. HOFFMANN (for the defendant Scheide): I have only a few words to say about this, your Honor. Is it not possible that these documents be called differently due to the fact that so many documents are introduced here? The current enumeration is not very easily separated from the others. If those new documents intend that, then they might to be differentiated from those documents which have been introduced so far by the prosecution; and they should not be numbered any further.
THE PRESIDENT: These documents have not been offered in evidence. They have been given an exhibit number just to identify them; but they are not in evidence. They are not in the record as proof or as evidence. They have not been offered.
DR. HOFFMANN: I see. Thank you.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Before we leave the period prior to the organization of the WVHA, I should like to ask you if you recall making a tour with Eicke, who was inspector of the concentration camps, in June in 1938 with Eicke and Sturmbannfuehrer Hubert Karl to Austria and to Weiden.
A. I did not quite understand the last name which you mentioned.
Q. To a place near Weiden, later on known as Flossenburg.
A. Yes, in 1938 I was in Austria; and I saw the quarry there in Mauthausen or Wienergraben, rather, as it was called at the time, and also Weiden. However, I do not know for sure if he was there, if Karl was there. But I was there. That was 1938 after the occupation of the Ostmark; and I was down at the quarry.
Q. Do you remember making a trip with Eicke and with Karl to Mauthausen or to the place where Mauthausen concentration camp was later erected, for the purpose of selecting a location for the camp?
A. The reason for that trip was the visit of Wienergraben. As I said before, the quarry was near Mauthausen. I believe that Himmler was there, too.
Q. It was the practice to erect concentration camps near stone works or stone quarries, was it not?
A. That was not always the reason. Of course, as far as the possibilities were there, they tried to have some sort of work for these inmates; but all concentration camps were not built near quarries. Most of the time Himmler personally designated the location. Also, he visited the place before they built the camp at least once.
Q. Then on this particular trip in June 1938 do you recall that you went with Eicke and with Karl for the purpose of selecting the location for Mauthausen for the concentration camp?
A. I remember that at that time I visited the quarry of Wienergarben near Mauthausen the location of the concentration camp and the selection of the area was not under my authority.
Q. I didn't ask you if it was under your authority. Did you go there for the purpose of selecting a concentration camp and advising Himmler on that subject?
A. Well, I remember that I drove there in order to visit the quarry of Wienergraben with which we were carrying out negotiations for the purchase of that quarry with the town of Vienna. However, I also remember that on one of the visits--I no longer recall whether it was on that or another occasion, Himmler was personally there and we were discussing the site of that concentration camp. I myself made no proposal how and where the concentration camp was to be built.
Q. The camp was built after that trip, was it not?
A. Yes. Yes, it was. Yes, after 1938.
Q. You say that you discussed the location with Himmler?
A. Well, I know for sure that I went up in order to see the quarry. It is possible that on that occasion we also discussed the site or the location for the concentration camp and I believe that Himmler was there too.
Q. Wasn't the primary purpose for the trip to make recommendations for the location for the camp and to make recommendations to Himmler?
A. Well, I believe that Himmler himself selected the location on the spot. I don't believe I am wrong when I am saying that Himmler was present.
Q. And you say that you made no proposals or recommendations to Himmler?
A. I can no longer recall that. I no longer recall having made a suggestion to Himmler and to where the camp should be located. At the time I was mainly interested in that place due to the quarries.
Q. What was your interest in the quarry?