It can be only private enterprises of this context, because the SS enterprises, so far as wages for inmates were concerned, had to take quite different measures, and in all these documents here the only thing just referred to is employment of inmates in SS Industry and not private industry.
Q Isn't it true that a long discussion lasting over several months took place, and the main point of the discussion was that private industry was complaining because they had to pay more for their labor than the SS Industry had to pay for the labor they received?
A I know nothing about that, that private industry -
Q Very well. Will you turn back to the first document in this Book, which we were discussing, NO-1035, and do you see the suggestion by Hohberg that the profits made from the use of concentration camp inmates be collected by the WVHA, and turned over in full, or in part to the Lebensborn?
A That is just a suggestion made either by Hohberg or Wenner, and I did not even discuss that suggestion but refused it, and declined it as completely improper. It never happened, because if profits were there I would have increased the wages for inmates on the basis of those profits and transferred the profits to the Reich. I never thought in this way of giving the Lebensborn funds, or even part of the profits. I did not even discuss that suggestion because it was nonsense in this form.
Q You were a member of the Lebensborn, were you not?
A Yes, I believe we had all to be members. All SS members had to be members of the Lebensborn.
Q What position did you hold in the Lebensborn?
A I was just a member, as anybody else.
Q You were more than a member, weren't you? You held a high position in the Lebensborn?
A Well, I never carried out the functions of that letter. I can not even remember. I paid my contribution which was deducted from my salary, and I was never present in a conference, or anything else.
Q You never were supervising director of the Lebensborn?
A I don't believe they had a board of directors, but I was curator, or something of that sort, I can not recall.
Q Suppose you tell the Tribunal what was the organization known as the Lebensborn. What was the nature of it. What was its purposes?
A Lebensborn was a registered association founded by Himmler in order to, as it were, to have a practical institution to prevent abortions, to save children of good blood. Mothers with illegitimate children were to be given the opportunity to have their children born in decent homes, and to bring up their children there. There again, not all unmarried mothers were accepted indiscriminately. The father had to admit that he was the father, and the whole education from the beginning was to be put on a decent basis from an illicit marriage so far as the mother was concerned. The idea was to have the abortion, which was done in Germany by the hundreds of thousands to be prevented, and a practical attempt was to be made on the part of Himmler, who later on became Minister of the Interior, not only by enlightenment and propaganda but by giving a practical possibility of solving this problem of unmarried mothers. For that purpose he had founded the Lebensborn Association, which had a number of homes at its disposal; well equipped homes, both medical and so far as nursing personnel were concerned, where these unmarried mothers would be received.
These homes were financed by the contributions of all members of the SS who had to join the Lebensborn as a matter of duty. These contributions were adjusted to the rank and were collected monthly by deduction from one's salary. The president of the Lebensborn consisted of a business manager and a doctor. It is impossible that I was a member of the board or something, but when Lebensborn was being built up I had no part in it, and the honorary position which I held never did penetrate into my consciousness really.
Q. Well, it was not only to assist the mothers of illegitimate children, it was actually to encourage their having illegitimate children, wasn't it? It was designed to increase the population of the Reich, wasn't it?
A. No, no, that was not the task of Lebensborn. The Lebensborn was purely an institution in order to save illegitimate children. I know of no efforts made in encouraging their having illegitimate children. That was not the task of Lebensborn at all.
Q. It was designed to bring up children in the SS tradition, was it not? Just answer that yes or no.
A. No, no, that was not only confined to the SS. Other mothers were there too. The mothers did not always stay in the Lebensborn homes with their children, but, depending on their social position, in some cases only just before and after the birth, up to a certain period going as far as one or two years, which were exceptional cases.
Q. Now, you have told us that you were only a member of Lebensborn and not supervising director. I would like to show you Document 1362 and ask you if that does not show the contrary. It is addressed to the Supervising Director of the Lebensborn Pohl, is it not? Well, you can tell that without reading the entire letter.
A. Well, I do not recall that I was active in this connection at all. I may have been a curator or something. On occasions I would receive communications from the Lebensborn without actually being active in that connection.
Q. Lebensborn also took over numerous confiscated homes, did they not, homes that were confiscated from the Jews?
A. On such details I am not informed.
Q. Take another look at this document and see if it does not inform you further.
DR. HOFFMAN: (For Defendant Scheide): May it please the Court, might I ask that we would be given copies of these documents? This is the second document, and we have no chance of seeing it.
MR ROBBINS: If we have them here, which I think we do, I will supply copies. If not I will at the recess if I can find them.
Q. (By Mr. Robbins) It says that the Sanatorium Werwal which had been till now belonging to Jewish doctors was confiscated by the Gestapo at the time and turned over to the Lebensborn. That is in a letter addressed to you, isn't it? It also says because of the prospect to acquire additional furnishings through the confiscation of various Jewish or enemy enterprises for the homes of the Lebensborn the management made certain arrangements, etc. Well, I will submit the document and have it numbered, and it will speak for itself. I should like to mark it as Exhibit 527 for identification.
DR. SEIDL(For Defendant Oswald Pohl): May it please the Court, I object to this. Even if this document is admitted only for identification I object as long as the defense is not given a copy of it.
Q. (By Mr. Robbins) You don't remember it? You have no recollection of ever receiving the letter?
A. Oh, yes, I received it.
Q. You remember receiving the letter; you don't remember what the letter said though?
A. I read it just now.
Q. You didn't remember before I showed You the letter that you were managing director of the Lebensborn, however?
A. No, I did not recall. I was not a managing director.
Q. The letter says you were, doesn't it?
A. Please?
Q. Never mind, the letter will speak for itself. This is the organization, is it not, that Hohberg suggested the funds be turned over to?
DR. SEIDL (For Defendant Oswald Pohl): May it please the Court, the translation also says that Pohl was a managing director of Lebensborn. From the document in my hand now it shows quite clearly that Pohl quite obviously was a member of the supervisory board. That board obviously was an institution which had the same function as a board of director's, but there is no question of the document showing that the Defendant Pohl had any function which was the same as that of a director.
THE PRESIDENT: Was there anything in the indictment about this?
MR. ROBBINS: No, your Honor, I am using this to impeach the veracity of this witness. He had told us--There is something in the documents about it, there is something also in the indictment about confiscation of property for the use of the SS. The WVHA, it is alleged, handled the confiscation of property for the Lebensborn, and when I asked the witness if he was a member of the Lebensborn he said that he was. I asked him if he held a high position, and he said that he did not. Then I produced the document to show that he did.
THE PRESIDENT: The document indicates he was a member of the supervisory committee.
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, your Honor.
THE WITNESS: The WVHA never confiscated houses for the Lebensborn. We were not in a position to do so. The WVHA was not connected in any way with the activities of Lebensborn.
Q. (By Mr. Robbins) You handled the financial affairs of the Lebensborn, did you not?
A. No.
Q. You didn't handly the budget of Lebensborn?
A. No, we never did.
Q. You have already stated that you handled the budget matters of all of the main offices. This was a part of one of the main offices unser Himmler, wasn't it?
A. Lebensborn had nothing to do with the budgets of the main offices. It was a private association. I do not know where the Lebensborn got its money from. I turned down here the suggestion to turn over profits from enterprises to Lebensborn. It would have been quite easy for me to do so, but I declined it definitely.
Q. You did not turn down the suggestion that buildings be confiscated for use of the Lebensborn even from Jewish families even though you were on the supervisory board, did you?
A. That is not a suggestion here, but it is purely a report made by the supervisory member which reached Himmler and probably the other so-called members of the supervisory board. I received this report so rarely that I didn't even recall I was a member of the supervisory board.
MR. ROBBINS: That is obvious.
DR: SEIDL (For Defendant Oswald Pohl) May it please the Court, before we leave this document I should like to point out that the letter submitted by the Prosecution is dated 21 June 1938. That is to say it was written at a time where there was no WVHA in existence even.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the date?
DR. SEIDL: 21 June 1938.
Q. (By Mr. Robbins) Well, if there was not a WVHA in existence there was a Berwaltungsamt at that date, was there not, and you were in charge of that, and that handled the budgetary matters of the SS?
A. I declare here that neither the Verwaltungsamt nor the WVHA had anything to do with Lebensborn. Even if people called me a member of the supervisory board, it was an association completely apart from the WVHA, and it was in charge of Standargenfuehrer Sollmann in Munich. Lebensborn was a registered association and a private asso ciation.
We never gave it any money at all.
Q. Lebensborn was not dissolved in 1938, was it? It continued right up through the end of the war, didn't it, right through your administration of the WVHA?
A. I believe Lebensborn existed up to the end, but had nothing to do with the WVHA. The fact that I personally was listed as a member of the supervisory board has no significance for any connection with the WVHA. It was purely a personal matter. I had no right to inspect their books or decide measures for the Lebensborn.
Q. Even though you were on the supervisory board you took no steps to stop the confiscation of property, did you? You can answer that yes or no.
A. No, I took no steps.
MR. ROBBINS: Would it be convenient to recess at this time?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal No. 2 is again in session.
DR. SEIDL: (Attorney for the Defendant Oswald Pohl): Your Honors, in the cross-examination before the recess, the prosecution submitted a number of documents to the Defendant Pohl. Up to now, the defense has not received any copies of the documents and all the defense counsels are interested in seeing these documents particularly due to count one (1) of the indictment. Therefore, I would like the Tribunal to rule that the prosecution should only be allowed to submit documents in cross-examination when it at the same time supplies copies of these documents to the defense, in order to enable the defense to raise objections at the appropriate time. There is no sense objecting to a document if it has been presented, especially if the document is presented in the course of the cross-examination. In the previous trials it has been the rule that the defense would receive a copy of all the documents at the same time as they would be presented. I think that this should be an order of procedure which should be adopted also in this court.
MR. ROBBINS: May I say a word on this, your Honor? I think there have been only two documents that we haven't had processed and mimeographed in English and in German. I think all of the rest that I will offer have been, and certainly those cases will be at a minimum. I should like to explain to the Tribunal the handicap that we are laboring under, however. It is impossible to know even an hour in advance the completely unpredictable statements that Pohl is going to make. We pass the document room practically every hour, your Honor, to get a document that I haven't even seen a translation of myself. I only have a short digest of the document.
For instance, Pohl has just testified that he had nothing whatever to do with the financing of the Lebensborn; that it was not under his office whatever. During the recess I found an analysis of a document which proves that that is an absolute lie. I had no idea that it would be necessary to produce the document because I supposed that Pohl would concede such an obvious fact.
I suggest that we would be put at an impossible handicap if we had to go to the trouble of processing each document before we presented it. As I said, there will be a minimum of cases, I hope. We have mimeographed almost all of the documents in this case and have them translated; but there are some that we have not.
THE PRESIDENT: I am sure defense counsel will realize that the prosecution has no way of knowing whether it will need the documents until the witness had answered the question. The need for the document arises only after the witness has given an unsatisfactory answer; and the need for the document cannot be anticipated. Mr. Robbins has just given an example of it. He did not know that Pohl would deny the relation with the Lebensborn until the witness gave his answer; and immediately then he needed a document with which to attack that answer.
I don't think the defense loses any rights or any advantage. It can always attack these documents and sooner or later will have a translation of the documents in their hands.
Meanwhile the document is translated into German as it is read so that you are not entirely ignorant of what the document says. We are not prepared to rule that documents which are used in impeaching a witness or for refreshing his recollection must be anticipated and translated and copies furnished before the prosecution can use the document in examining the witness.
Judge Phillips suggests the further point that these documents are not offered in evidence and that any objection to them can be raised at the time that they are offered.
MR. ROBBINS: As I have just stated, I have not seen myself a complete translation of this one-page letter, which shows that the administrative organization under Pohl handled a substantial part of the financing of the SS and that he was completely advised of all of the details. I would like to ask permission first to have the translators read the letter in English and then in German and then give a copy of the letter to the defendant Pohl.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you identified the letter?
MR. ROBBINS: I think the letter will speak for itself. It is a letter from Himmler to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Dr. Ebner, dated 4 March 1940.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. I should like to ask the witness first if he knows who Dr. Ebner is.
A. Dr. Ebner, I believe, was one of the managers in the Board of Supervisors of the Lebensborn, he was a physician there.
Q. MR. ROBBINS: Will the interpreter read it?
THE PRESIDENT: Have you given it an exhibit number?
MR. ROBBINS: I would like to reserve exhibit number 528 for this document and mark it for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: The translator may read the document in English and in German.
THE INTERPRETER: "Subject, Operation of Enterprises.
To the Chairman of the Lebensborn, Registered Society, SS Obergruppenfuehrer Dr. Ebner. All enterprises which the Lebensborn Registered Society maintains outside of its homes, subordinated to the Economic and Administrative Main Office, effective the 1st of April 1940. Through this subordination the maintenance of these enterprises is transferred in full competency to the Economic and Administrative Main Office. The maintenance takes place without any reservation only for purposes of the Lebensborn, the Registered Society. The not income, therefore, should only be used on behalf of the Society. I request that all details be discussed and agreed upon with SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl in person. Heil Hitler, (signed) Heinrich Himmler." There is a file note on the left of the letter.
MR. ROBBINS: I am told that there was one mistake in reading. It should have read the WVHA Verwaltungs rather than WVHA. I might say to the Court that I don't care to discuss this problem any further with the witness; and I don't care for any comment from the witness on the document.
DR. SEIDL (for the defendant Oswald Pohl):
Your Honor, the prosecution has just read a document. However, it refrains from addressing any questions to the defendant. I consider it appropriate now that the document has already been accepted into the record and the defense has not as yet received a copy of it, that at least the defendant himself be given the possibility now of expressing his point of view with regard to this document. I cannot see what purpose it would serve to read this document into the record unless the defendant himself is given the possibility of expressing his views with regard to this document in the course of the cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: You can give the defendant that chance when the time comes after the prosecution finishes. You can then ask the witness to explain anything you wish.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness, do you have anything to add to your testimony about the duties of the defendant Hohberg?
A. No.
Q. I think you've omitted to tell us that the defendant Hohberg in 1942 was made the Economic Inspector with the Chief of the SS Economic and Administrative Main Office. Do you know anything about that?
A. He became Economic Inspector?
Q. Yes, in his office.
A. Oh, yes, but he was an auditor. That's something completely different. That was the capacity in which we employed him.
Q. I should like to ask you this. Was he ever made Economic Inspector with the Chief of the WVHA?
A. No, he was never economic Inspector. I don't even know this designation at all, that of Economic Inspector. I only know Hohberg as an economic auditor and examiner; but I cannot recall that he ever was an Economic Inspector.
Q. Perhaps I should give you the German word for it. The word is "Wirtschaftinspekteurs." You wish to state that there was never an office and never an organization under the WVHA known as the Economic Inspector with the Chief of the WVHA?
A. I cannot recall this designation at the moment. I cannot recall that we had an Economic Inspector, socalled Wirtschaft Inspector.
Q. I would like to show you Document NO-1954, which I will mark for identification as Exhibit 529, and ask you if this refreshes your recollection. Is there anything in the letter about the Economic Inspector? Do the court interpreters have a copy. I would like to read a part of this document to you. It is signed by you, addressed to Dr. Hohberg, Economic Auditor.
"Subject: Reorganization of the Economic Auditor's office on my staff.
The increasing number of economic enterprises in the SS WVHA, their size and their importance make it imperative that I be constantly informed and posted within the shortest possible periods of time about the economic procedures within the individual enterprises. Therefore, it is no longer sufficient for the office of the Economic Auditor directed by you, to devote most of its work to auditing annual balance sheets and checking annual business reports. These reports come in so late that they are of little value to me, or in most cases none at all. The things which are criticized in these reports occurred much too far back. Accordingly, any measures which I may have taken because of these reports are issued too late and in the meantime the state of affairs, has generally changed completely for better or worse. Therefore, the office of Economic Auditor will be changed as of 1 October 1942."
I point out that the office of Economic Auditor is the same one referred to in the first part of the paragraph as being directed by you and Dr. Hohberg, and later is addressed to Hohberg, Economic Auditor.
"From that time on it will be called:
The Economic Inspector with the Chief of the SS Economic and Administrative Main Office.
The duties of the Economic Inspector are:
1. The constant, almost daily, supervision of all economic enterprises, with the aim of regularly informing the Chief of the SS Economic and Administrative Main Office as quickly as possible about all proceedings within these enterprises, in every respect, that is, from the point of view of finance, organization and legality, etc."
Does this refresh your recollection?
A. Yes.
Q. By the way, I would like to read another paragraph here, it is on down the page, "The Economic Supervisors will appear in the plants without any advance notice. They have unrestricted access to all office, factory and store rooms at any time," and so on. It says here that the functions of the office will not be restricted to merely auditing. Does it not? It says there will be daily, constant, almost daily supervision of all economic enterprises by the Economic Administration. Do you know anything about that, or have you forgotten also you have you forgotten also you have signed this letter?
A. I now recall by virtue of this document that this term "Economic Inspector", which has determined itself as later being used in correspondence; and a daily use with the term is almost unknown to me, as it did not cause any change in the private activity of economic order. The whole letter here is nothing else but a change in the checking activity, which now is not only carried out in the Berlin office but by mobile examiners and auditors, who would examine the things whenever they would visit, taxation matters, and accounting, and that was the reason for this order. I hardly believe that there are many documents in existence which refer to the Economic Inspector, especially since the assignment was not changed at all.
Q. You say that his assignment was not changed at all and that it did not expand his function in auditing?
A. Yes.
Q. The second paragraph of the letter states, "Therefore, it is no longer sufficient for the office of the Economic Auditor directed by you to devote most of its work to auditing annual balance sheets-
and so forth. I don't want to discuss this document with you any further. We will go on to the next subject. Just a moment. Just a moment.
THE PRESIDENT: Your own counsel, witness, can ask you any further questions or permit you to make any explanations that you wish, later.
MR ROBBINS: That finishes the discussion on Hohberg for the time being, except I would point out to the Court that inspite of that fact that the witness has testified that Hohberg was not actually Chief of Staff-W. That document NO-2178, which is in Book 14, on page 135 of the English, a letter by Volk states that: "By order of Obergruppenfuehrer---" that refers to Pohl, "I have today taken over the duties of Dr. Hohberg as Chief of Staff-W." I will go on now and a ask you---before we leave Staff-W. It is true, isn't it, that Staff-W had supervision over the DWB?
A. Yes, taxation matters, legal matters and it had supervised inspections.
Q. It is also true, and will you refer to Exhibit No. 383, which I handed to you separately this morning. It is in Book 14. It is separate mimeographed documents.
A. OC 1039?
Q. Yes. It is also true that Staff-W supervised the second industry listed there, is it not, Public Utility Dwelling and Homestead Limited. Is that true? I did not get an answer?
A. Yes, it is also listed in Staff-W, but it had its own business manager.
Q. And also that Staff-W had supervision over the House and Real Estate Limited?
A. Well, I believe so. However, I cannot remember all details any more.
Q. You must have read NO-2178, which I just referred to, which is in Book 14, on page 135 of the English.
I think it is the last document in that book; from Volk, and it is to Building and Real estate Limited, and it states: that "By order of Obergruppenfuehrer I have today taken over the duties of Dr. Hohberg as Chief of Staff-W. Henceforth, the administration and all employees of The Building and Real Estate,G.m.b.H. and the Cooperative House and Home Building, GmbH., Dachau, belong wholly to Staff-W." That states the facts correctly, doesn't it?
A. Yes, if that's what it says, of course it's right.
Q. Staff-W also supervised the House and Real Estate Ltd. listed here, and the Satles Store of Berlin, furniture factory Ltd.?
A. Yes, it also belonged to Staff-W.
A. In Staff-W. I included all the firms which were not otherwise represented in the special fields, or the other offices.
Q. Yes, I understand. That is clear. That is sufficient. And also Eastern industries Ltd. also belonged to Staff-W, did it not?
A. Yes. You can not be expecte to accept it in such a way that it belonged to Staff-W Of course, it was subordinated to Staff-W.
Q. Isn't that the way you express it. That it belonged to Staff-W?
A. In a certain way I had to include them in Staff-W because they did not fit into any other office, after all-
Q. That is correct, I understand that. You also included Eastern Industries Ltd. in your chart which you looked at this morning, and said it was correct. That was included under Staff-W, wasn't it on the chart, do you recall that?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. Then I would like to go on to Office-W-1. The DEST was under Amtgruppe-1, was it not?
A. Amts-W-1.
Q. That was under the supervision of the defendant Mummenthey?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell us just what extensive powers that Mummenthey exercised over the German Earth and Stone Works? And I respectfully ask that you give us the complete story so that we won't have to get supplementary documents to fill out the picture.
A. Mummenthey, with Schondorf and Schwarz, was the commercial business manager of DEST. While Schondorf was the technical manager, Schwarz was the one who informed me of all commercial matters and reported to me about them in matters pertaining to the DEST. Schondorf was the manager who dealt with all the matters pertaining to the plants and their technical aspects.
Q. He was the manager of DEST?
A. DEST did not have a director. He was one of the managers.
Q. He was also a "Prokurist" of DEST?
A. No, he was the business manager. "Prokurist" is something else. It was not the same thing as a business manager. He was the business manager of DEST.
Q. That is good enough. However, Mummenthey says in his affidavit that he was "Prokurist" as well as business manager of DEST, but perhaps there again he didn't know what functions he was performing. It is true, isn't it, that the DEST employed concentration camp inmates?
A. Yes.
Q. It employed thousands of concentration camp inmates, didn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And used them in stone quarries, didn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. You know as a matter of fact that hundreds and hundreds of inmates died and were worked to death in the stone quarries, don't you?
A. No, I don't know that people were actually worked to death there. I have heard it but I did not see it from my own observations.
Q. When did you hear it?
A. I heard it here in the course of the trial through witnesses. Nothing was reported to me before that people were worked to death, and Mummenthey did not report anything about that to me.
Q. Do you suppose Mummenthey knew about it.
A. He certainly would have reported this fact to me, according to his character.
Q. This is the first time you heard about it here in Nuernberg, that is right, isn't it?
A. Yes. Nothing was known to me that people were being worked to death there because I would have intervened.
Q. You also know that Mummenthey did not know anything about it?
A. I can assume that. Otherwise he would have reported something about it to me.
Q. Whether people were worked, actually worked to death or not, you know today for a fact that hundreds of inmates died, hundreds of laborers who were working for DEST. In fact, thousands of them died. You know that, don't you, today?
A. I am not convinced that the prisoners in DEST died as a result of the work which they had to perform. If crimes have been committed there by the supervisors and the camp commanders who were not subject to my control, you cannot hold the managers responsible. In any case we took all the measures in order to make the work bearable in the plants of DEST. Proof of that is in the mechanization of the most modern kind that was introduced by us, and certainly they were not there to work people to death.
Q. Witness, you did not answer my question if, whether or not people were worked to death, it is a fact that hundreds and hundreds of inmates who were working for DEST either died or were killed. You know that from the proof in the case, don't you? You have seen the documents.
A. I have heard it here from the testimony of the witnesses.
Q. If it actually happened as the documents and testimony in the case show, can you give any conceivable explanation for the fact that Mummenthey should not have known about it as business manager of the DEST? It is true that the proof shows that he made inspections, repeated inspec tions of the DEST industries.
Do you have any idea why it was, if it is true, that Mummenthey did not know about this?
A. Mummenthey did not inspect the plants every day either. If he went there perhaps once a month, then there were twenty-eight or twentynine days when the other supervisors could do whatever they wanted to do without Mummenthey ever hearing about it.
Q. How often did he visit the plants?
A. I don't know how often Mummenthey went to inspect these plants.
Q. He gave you comprehensive reports on the conditions in the DEST industry, did he not?
A. Whenever he had something to report to me about the industries, then he did this on the occasion of our discussions orally, but it was not common to submit written reports on those matters.
Q. Do you wish to state here on the stand today that Mummenthey told you, either orally or in writing, that persons were dying in the DEST industry?
A. I don't think that he informed me of it. I can't recall. Of course, accidents may have happened. That happens in every plant but that he should have reported to me about constant mal conditions in the DEST plants that he also knew, that I can't recall. The DEST plants were exemplarily furnished, where such accidents did not exceed the number of the accidents which could happen in privately owned industries.
THE PRESIDENT: How many different locations were under the control of the DEST? How many stone quarries did they have?
THE WITNESS: Mauthausen, Flossenburg, Natzweiler.
Q. (By Mr. Robbins) Let me refresh your recollection. There was one at Auschwitz, wasn't there, a gravel and granite works?
A. There was no stone quarry at Auschwitz. That was a clay pit there, a gravel pit there.
Q. There was a gravel pit at Auschwitz under the DEST?
A. Yes.
Q. And also it had plants in Treblinka and Blessin. Treblinka is the place where--