BY DR. SEIDL:
Q.- The Prosecution during cross examination introduced document NO-2360, which was provided with the identification number 531. This is a trip ticket for a truck from Auschwitz to Dessau, and dated 30 July 1943 from the concentration camp of Auschwitz. In connection with this document I would like to ask the witness, did you yourself, or was it the WVHA, at the time have anything to do with the requisitioning or bringing out the Zyklon?
A. I myself never had anything to do with the procurement of Zyklon, and I never knew anything about it, nor do I know anything about the fact that any office of the WVHA in Berlin dealt with the procurement of Zyklon.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Didn't your auditing office have to audit the bills for the Zyklon?
A. No. I don't know anything about it. I never saw any bills for Zyklon.
Q. I did not ask about yourself, but weren't the bills for supplies in the concentration camps audited in the WVHA?
A. I don't know that, and I don't believe so.
Q. What about Amtsgruppe D?
A. Well, I don't know if Amtsgruppe D procured the Zyklon.
Q. Not procured the Zyklon, but --
A. I don't know that, nor do I know anything about it.
Q. Well, who ordered the Zyklon in the first place?
A. I don't know that, Your Honor.
Q. Who received it in the concentration camps?
A. I assume that the camp commandant received it.
Q. And who ordered it paid for?
A. I don't know how it was paid for.
Q. And who checked or audited the bill or the invoice?
A. I don't know that.
Q. Well, then, your answer is that tremendous quantities of this poison came into the concentration camps that were under the WVHA, you don't know who ordered it, who received it, who directed it to be paid for, or who paid for it?
A. Yes, that is correct. I know nothing about it.
Q. And you don't even know that it was over used?
A. I did not know it at the time, no.
Q. Did anybody in the WVHA know these things?
A. I don't think so.
Q. Hundreds and hundreds of cans of poison gas came into the concentration camps, and neither you nor anybody in WVHA knew how it got there, nor who ordered it, nor who paid for it, nor what it was used for?
A. Your Honor, all these measures-
Q. Is that true?
A. I am convinced that in the WVHA nobody knew anything about it.
MR. ROBBINS: Your Honor, I believe that the defendant's answer to Dr. Seidl's question was not responsive and that either the question should he answered responsively or the answer should be stricken out. Dr. Seidl asked if the defendant or any part of his organization had anything to do with the procuring of Zyklon gas and referred him to Exhibit 531. The defendant's answer was, I had nothing to do with the procuring of the gas. If he looks at the exhibit which his attorney directed him to, it shows that the chief of Amtsgruppe D signed the permission to carry the gas to Auschwitz. I think that the defendant should answer that part of his attorney's question concerning the remainder of his organization and not merely his own personal activity.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. Witness, did you understand this question?
A. Your question?
Q. No, the question that was put to you by the Prosecution just now.
A. Well, the chief of Amtsgruppe D did not ask for permission from me in order to transport this Zyklon from Auschwitz to Dessau, a long trip.
Q. The chief of Amtsgruppe D, Gluecks, didn't he ever discuss this matter with you?
A. No.
Q. Do you have any indications that Gluecks knew of the whole action?
A. I did not discuss the facts with Gluecks. I didn't know.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. That is not the point. Gluecks knew about it, didn't he?
A. Yes, Gluecks was the one that gave the permission for this trip, but he did not discuss these things with me.
Q. But you told me a few minutes ago that nobody in the WVHA know anything about Zyklon, but Gluecks knew about it, certainly?
A. I said that neither I nor any other member of the WVHA in Berlin knew of it, but what Gluecks knew about it in Oranienburg, I do not know, Your Honor. All I know is that he possibly wrote out this permission for travel. In other words, he was the one that permitted this truck. What he knew apart from that, I do not know because he never discussed that point with me.
Q. Well, Amtsgruppe D was part of the WVHA, wasn't it?
A. Amtsgruppe D was part of the WVHA. However, it was out in Oranienburg and not in my house.
Q. Well, it was a part of the organization. I don't mean that it was right on your desk, but it was a part of the WVHA.
A. Yes, ever since 1942 it was a part of the WVHA.
Q. And you were chief of the WVHA?
A. Yes, I was chief of the WVHA.
Q. And Gluecks in Amtsgruppe D knew about Zyklon.
A. Yes. All I know is that he permitted him to take that truck. What he did apart from that or what he knew about Zyklon, I do not know.
Q. Well, he didn't think it was a food, did he?
A. I don't know that. We never discussed the fact. I found out that Zyklon was also used against vermin in other camps.
Q. "Vermin" in the same sense that Himmler used the word?
A. I don't know that, Your Honor.
Q. You remember hearing about Himmler's reference to "Jews and lice, don't you?
A. Well, maybe that was his thought about it. Maybe these were his thoughts.
Q. Did you ever hear his speech about it?
A. Yes, of course, I heard his speech in Posen.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. You just stated that in all the camps Zyklon was used for delousing. Don't you think that Gluecks could have been of the same opinion after he issued the permit for the trip that this Zyklon was used for the same purpose?
A. That is possible.
Q. The Prosecution, then, during cross examination submitted a document to you which you yourself signed. It is Document NO 2571 and received Exhibit Number 534 for Identification. With reference to paragraph (3) of this affidavit, I ask you now, witness, when did it become clear to you for the first time that at least part of the valuables originated from Action Reinhardt the extermination program for the Jews?
A. I personally received the first clear picture from all the documents of the economic last check-up from Globecnick, and that was in January 1944, I assumed that the entire extermination program was concluded with this.
THE PRESIDENT: Don't you remember this, Dr. Seidl? Don't you remember this? I questioned the witness at great length. January 1944 was stated a dozen times. Now, go ahead; if you have got something now, go a head, but don't tell me about January 1944 again.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. The Prosecution then showed you an affidavit which was also taken up in 1946. That is Document NO 4-45 PS, which received Exhibit No. 536. I shall put this document before you now, witness, and I shall ask you how this affidavit was written up, what the circumstances were, and if you yourself still maintain the statements contained in that affidavit.
A. I no longer stick to this affidavit today to the full extent after having studied all these documents and also after having been in solitary confinement. I can recognize at the present moment that there are objective mistakes in here. About a year ago when I signed this affidavit, together with many others.
I was taken from one interrogation to another, and upon my arrival here at Nurnberg, I was under both a physical and a mental depression. On the day before I was transferred from Lendorf to Nurnberg, I was in British custody, I was badly mistreated. Between six and seven in the evening, the guards broke into my cell-approximately six or eight men--and they tied me to a chair, although I had been tied prior to that, and then-
MR. ROBBINS: I'd like, before we hear this history, to find out what relation it has with the affidavit. The affidavit was signed on 15 July 1946, and so far he has not told us when this occurrence took place.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, he may continue his answer.
A. These mistreatments took place on the 31st of May, that is to say, fourteen days prior to that.
THE PRESIDENT: When?
A. '46, 1946, that is fourteen days prior to that. I was tied to that chair and two men held my head behind the back of the chair while another smeared my face with a burning mixture, and this mixture was scratched down with a razor, and my whole face was cut to pieces so that both my shirt and my trousers were full of blood. In those open wounds then they rubbed salt with the palms of their hands into those wounds for long minutes, and my whole head was burning as if I had it in some sort of an acid, and during the entire procedure I was beaten with their fists, I was spat at, and I was beaten until I collapsed unconscious. When I came to again I was lying on a couch and two doctors were taking care of my injuries, one or two hours later. I stayed there, and between nine and ten in the evening I was interrogated, which interrogation lasted until the early hours of the morning. A few hours after the interrogation I was transferred to Nurnberg where I arrived on the first of June, 1946. After twenty-four hours I was interrogated again here in the morning and in the afternoon, and I was asked about all sorts of things after the tortures that had occurred to me, namely certain tortures that consisted of the following things. When I was taken into the interrogation I had to wait outside marking time on the double. Then the guard kept kicking me in the rear, and a halter was put to me so that I hit the ground on my whole length or I banged my head against the wall. Those were the occurrences that occurred there a few days before my arrival here, and now all those interrogations were thrown at me. During the noon recess I was interrogated by the psychologist, who submitted all sorts of drawings to me, which I was to understand and decipher, and sometimes I thought I was crazy or something.
Under all those circumstances, and then in that particular physical condition, nor even one piece of paper in my hand at all, no document on which I could base my recollection, I was asked a thousand and one questions, and this one here and all the others were part of them.
But although the questions were put to me, in other words, they asked me, "Do you know anything about it?" I said, "Yes, it might have been that way," I can see today there were objective mistakes and certain untrue facts in there. For instance, the entire visit of the Reichsbank was told me in such a manner that I actually believed that it actually occurred that way. Not I said that I made this statement but the interrogator did, and with his own words it was put into the affidavit. From all those interrogations, namely in March or April, an extract was made out of those, an excerpt, not as original, new interrogations, but they were excerpts from those interrogations which were taken a year ago, so that he took all those mistakes that I made a year ago into those new interrogations, and that is how all those interrogations were. That is the reason I do not want to make another statement now, in order to avoid more mistakes. I cannot stick to all my statements to the full extent, and according to my recollection at the present moment they were actually wrong, for that is how they were made up.
Q. (By Dr. Seidl) Witness, the Prosecution during the cross-elimination showed you Dr. Kraemer's diary of 1943. Kraemer was apparently a physician in Auschwitz. From this diary it can be seen that on 23rd of September, 1943, you were in Auschwitz and that you participated at a special dinner which was served in the Fuehrerheim, the Fuehrer Home. I ask you now, where is this Fuehrer Home, is it in the direct vicinity of the protective custody camp or is it some distance from there, and what can you say about it?
MR. ROBBINS: I think that Dr. Seidl has the date wrong. It was 1942, wasn't it?
THE PRESIDENT: Our recollection it is 1942.
JUDGE MUSSMANO: Dr. Seidl, before you get too far away from the long exposition made by the defendant as to why certain statements are ascribed to him, I would like to ask just a question or two on these affidavits which were mode in March, 1947.
BY JUDGE MUSSMANO:
Q. Witness, this alleged mistreatment did not leave any permanent mental or physical scars, did it?
A. Well, during those weeks I was really depressed, both psychologically and physically, and then I actually stated the facts exactly as they were without exaggerating any of them.
Q. Did you ever tell this story before?
A. I had no opportunity to do so, to ever tell anybody about it.
Q. You were examined for days by your own counsel. How is it you didn't tell us about this at that time?
A. Because it was not possible in connection with this question. I wanted to talk about it during the cross-examination, but I was stopped.
Q. I mean the direct examination. It seems to me that if this story is true that this would be one of the most vivid things in your memory and one of the things which you would want to tell an impartial tribunal just as soon as you got into that witness stand. Why is it that you waited all this time before telling us this startling episode which you have now recounted?
A. No questions of my defendant counsel did I find any reason to tell of those occurrences and happenings.
Q. You were presented with document after document charging you with some rather serious things, and at no time did it occur to you to explain, until today, that you made these statements because you were suffering mentally as a result of a mistreatment which you have now, after all this time, described?
A. These documents were only introduced by the Prosecutor now during the cross-examination. Prior to that they were not discussed, I am talking about the affidavits right now.
Q. When you were cross-examined by Mr. Robbins on these documents you never said, "Well, I repudiate those documents because I was under physical and mental pain, or mental duress, when I signed them." You said nothing like that.
A. Yes, I was just about ready to talk about it, but I was cut off by the Prosecutor. He said this would be discussed later on by my defense counsel. I remember exactly that point, when I wanted to talk about them, and I was interrupted.
Q. What was your mental condition in March of 1947?
A. 1946?
Q. No, March, 1947.
A. You mean this year?
Q. Yes, what is your mental condition today?
A. Well, I think that I am absolutely normal.
Q. You feel yourself to be in full possession of your mental faculties today, as of June 2nd?
A. Yes, I think so.
Q. And you feel you were in similar condition in March of 1947?
A. Yes, I think so.
Q. Now, you signed a couple of affidavits in March of 1947, and these affidavits both close with these words: "I have read the above affidavit in the German language, consisting of a certain number of pages, and declare that it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and I was given the opportunity to make all alterations and corrections in the above affidavit. This affidavit was given by me freely and voluntarily without any promise of reward, and I was subject to no compulsion or duress of any kind." Is that correct?
A. Yes, it says all that underneath very nicely...
Q. That is correct?
A. This affidavit, however, was not written up in March, 1947. It was nothing but an excerpt from the interrogation which was taken in 1946.
Q. That is right.
A. And I endeavored to get the interrogator, to show him all those discrepancies, but I was always told again and again, "Well, you swore to that about a year ago." In other words, I simply did not succeed in eliminating those discrepancies in there. As far as I succeeded in doing so, well, it was a real success. The interrogator always again and again came back to the interrogation of 1946. That is where the mistakes slip in.
Q. But the fact remains that in March, 1947, when you were in full possession of your mental faculties, entirely recovered from any physical abuse which you claim you suffered, you wrote and signed, "This affidavit was given by me freely and voluntarily without any promise of reward, and I was subject to no compulsion or duress of any kind."
A. Yes.
Q. Were you telling a lie when you signed that?
A. I signed it without being convinced of the fact that that was an original affidavit, because it referred again and again to the interrogation of 1946.
Q. One more question, you understood exactly what was contained in this statement which I have just read to you?
A. Yes.
Q. You signed it voluntarily?
A. Yes.
JUDGE MUSSMANO: That is all.
MR. ROBBINS: I would like to point out to the Tribunal that the affidavits made and signed by the defendant in March and April of this year were signed and sworn to after the indictment in the case was served on the defendant, which should have given him additional notice that they would be used against him, as the first paragraph in the affidavit says that they will be. As to the affidavit that was taken in 1946, I would like to point out that although this affidavit was put to the defendant for the first time on cross examination that his counsel interrogated him at great length about the first time when he heard about the extermination of the Jews.
Similarly the Tribunal examined him at great length about that same subject, and at no time during those interrogations did he say anything about the story he has just told us.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q. In regard to the mistreatment that you said that you received prior to coming to Nurnberg, you say that was done by the British?
A. Yes.
Q. How long after you were arrested?
A. I would guess approximately three to four days after my arrest.
Q. Where and under what circumstances were you arrested?
A. I was arrested near Bremen by German Criminal Police, accompanied by the British.
Q. Then you were turned over to the Americans by the British some three or four days after your arrest?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have been in Nurnberg since?
A. Yes.
Q. You do not allege here at any time that Americans have beaten you or mistreated you or tortured you in any way, do you?
A. No, I don't say that. That was not the case.
BY JUDGE MUSSMANO:
Q. After your alleged mistreatment in the town, whose name I did not catch, you were brought to Nurnberg, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. You were brought here the day after the alleged mistreatment?
A. Please?
Q. You were brought here the day after the alleged mistreatment?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you treated by doctore here because of your treatment, mistreatment, in the Nurnberg prison?
A. No.
THE INTERPRETER: The name of the town was Bremen, your Honor.
MR. ROBBINS: I would like to point out to the Tribunal also this defendant, I found, was arrested by the British for a separate criminal act which had nothing to do with his connections with the SS. It may be the Tribunal would like to interrogate along that line.
Dr. Seidl: Just one more question, your Honors, in this connection.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. Witness, the Tribunal noticed that during the direct examination I had not asked you a direct question with reference to how this affidavit came about. Now, is it correct that you, yourself, never told me anything about this incident so far, and that I, up to the resent moment, did not know what the mistreatments were in detail to which you just testified?
A. No, I never discussed the matter with you.
DR. SEIDL: Your Honor, I really want to put some weight on the fact that I only asked that question to the witness for the simple reason that when Document 404-PS was put before him he did not have the possibility to make statements in detail, and that I have not heard about this entire incident which the witness spoke about now, exactly as the Tribunal did.
THE PRESIDENT: Recess until one-thirty.
THE MARSHAL: This Tribunal is in recess until 13:45 hours.
(A recess was taken until 13:45 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 2 June 1947) OSWALD POHL - Resumed REDIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. SEIDL:Q.- Witness, I have two more questions to put to you.
The prosecution in their cross examination submitted to you the diary of Dr. Cremer, who it would appear was one of the camp doctors in Auschwitz. This diary shows that on 23 September 1942, you were at Auschwitz, and although this does not become clear from the diary, you were not participating in a special banquet. You said in your testimony that at that time during your visit you did not notice anything suspicious. I would like to ask you where this house was in which the banquet was held.
A.- This leader's house is situated near the living quarters, about ten minutes from the station, on the other side of the protective custody camp and the concentration camp. Opposite, there was the living quarters of a leader. During the dinner, as I was a vegetarian and a teetotaler, I did not spend much time. I just stayed as long as it was necessary to have dinner and I returned to my quarters afterwards. During the dinner no word was said of that extermination nor did I receive any reports, and I had not made any observations of my own.
Q.- Evidence before the IMT showed that the extermination program of the Jews was based on a direct Hitler order. This becomes also clear from what is known as political testament. You, yourself, denied that before the beginning of 1944 to have had any knowledge of this matter, particularly of its extent, and that only through Himmler's speech at the Posen meeting you heard of the program.
You, yourself, were chief of one of the 12 main offices of the SS. I would like to ask you, would you have had the power to prevent this extermination program from being carried out if you had had any previous knowledge of it?
A.- I did not have the facilities to stop Hitler or Himmler from carrying out this program.
Q.- I have no further questions, Your Honor.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q.- Since you have had an opportunity to investigate the documents fully and carefully, do you now have an estimate satisfactory to yourself as to now many Jews were exterminated in the concentration camp during the time that the program was in progress?
A.- I have had no evidence of that. I cannot give you a figure. I am unable to estimate it. The documents do not show any figures.
Q.- And you have no knowledge, other than the documents, as to how many Jews were exterminated in the concentration camps?
A.- No. I never received any reports to that effect.
JUDGE TOMS: Any other questions?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHMIDT: (For the defendant Joseph Vogt) Q.- Witness, before your cross examination when I asked you, you said that you can still recall the auditing report which Vogt submitted after his return from Lublin in June 43 and that that auditing report had contained general reclamations.
The prosecution in their cross-examination submitted to you your affidavit of 2 April 47, Document NO-2714, Ex hibit 535.
In this affidavit you again mentioned the auditing report of Vogt in connection with the final report from Globocnik. I would therefore like to ask you, witness, did that auditing report of Vogt's contain, apart from the general criticisms connected with treasury matters, any indications of gold teeth, rings or jewels confiscated ?
A.- I cannot recall that such statements would have been contained in Vogt's auditing report. I do not know.
Q.- In the affidavit which I mentioned to you of 2 April 1947, you explained that the first transport of valuables of which you received knowledge occurred in the fall of 1943, and that later on from the final report by Globocnick and Vogt's auditing report, you saw that the loot from the Action Reinhardt came from the most varying personal properties as gold teeth, rings, jewels and foreign currency. You testified before that Vogt's auditing report had been submitted to you a few days later, roughly a week after he had returned from Lublin in June of 1943. In that affidavit given by you on the second of April 1947, you stated that later on you learned through Vogt's and Globocnick's final report, that is later than Autumn 1943, of the origin and extent of the booty.
Is it possible, witness, that at the time when you gave your affidavit of the 2d of April, 1947, as far as Vogt's Auditing Report was concerned, that you made a mistake, because, from the point of view of time and dates, there is a discrepancy between this and your other statements?
A. Well, Vogt's Auditing Report had nothing to do with Globocnic's final report. You cannot put the two together. As far as that there was some connection there -but they had nothing to do with each other. One was dated in June 1943 and the other January of '44.
Q. And Vogt's Auditing Report, apart from the general criticism, contained nothing otherwise, particularly concerning the composition of these confiscated objects?
A. I recall that Vogt's report was very brief, and concerned itself only with treasury matters. I don't think that it made any other statements.
Q. I now want to talk about Document NO-059, Exhibit 488, in Document Book 19. In that report by Globocnic about the administrative handling of the Reinhardt Action Reference is made to the effect that Vogt's auditing in Lublin limited itself only to the period up to the first of April 1943, whereas for the balance of that period, auditing still had to be done.
In connection with that document, Judge Phillips asked you a number of questions, witness, and in his final question, reference was made to two reports by Vogt; a preliminary report and a final report.
I would therefore like to ask you: Did you receive from Vogt one or two auditing reports concerning the Reinhardt account?
A. I can recall only one report of Vogt's dated June 1943. I cannot recall him making a final report, apart from that.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: I understood the witness to say that Vogt made one report--I understood the witness, in answer to my question, to testify that Vogt made one report, and that later that report--which was originally a preliminary report--became the final report, and was accepted as the final report.
Q. Witness, was Vogt's Auditing Report regarded as a final report later on?
A. Well, that was not possible because the auditing had not been completely finished, and, after June 1943, Vogt did not deal with auditing anymore. He transferred the accounts to Melmer. As far as I can recall, Vogt wrote only one report.
Q. Witness, is it correct then that Vogt, as far as the period since April 1943 is concerned, did no longer audit any sums connected with the Reinhardt account?
A. Well, as far as I am informed, the accounts, for the period after April 1943, went to Melmer who audited them.
DR. SCHMIDT: I have no further questions.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION.
BY DR. HOFFMANN (Counsel for the defendant Scheide):
Q. Witness, if I have understood you correctly, when you dealt with the Jewish question you made a difference between orders to kill and orders to use labor; orders to kill were not your concern. You were only interested in labor allocation. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. How did the orders to kill come about; what persons do you know there?
A. I don't know. I can only base my judgment there on hear say; I have no knowledge of my own.
Q. But surely you must have known that Hoess had orders to kill -
or did you hear that later?
A. I don't know that from my own knowledge. I only heard it that Hoess actually did it. But I do not know how or when he received orders. But, of course, later on I heard--as my Defense counsel said several times.
Q. Witness, I would like you to tell us whose subordinate was Hoess-was he your subordinate?
A. As a camp commandant he was my subordinate, but carrying out orders of a special nature, such as the extermination program, he stood under the man who gave him orders--who was Himmler. I was not present when he received that order, nor do I know the time when He received that order.
Q. And the order, too, for labor allocation--what about that?
A. I was given that order by Himmler.
Q. And that order you passed on to the various camp commandants?
A. Yes, I described in detail how I passed that order on.
Q. So that camp commandants were under two masters: one, whom you don't know very much about, and the other is yourself.
A. Well, as far as the Reichsfuehrer-SS was concerned, that was nothing new, that a man would haw several masters because even in the WVHA, as I explained before, the very special tasks given to Frank or Kammler--in that case they were no longer under me; they were then either directly under Himmler or under Hitler.
DR. HOFFMANN: Thank you very much.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. HAENSEL (Counsel for the defendant Georg Loerner.):
Q. Witness, there was a small misunderstanding which I want to clear up. You gave a number of affidavits shortly before this trial opened, on the third of April, 1947 for instance, and this trial opened on the 8th of April. The prosecution used this affidavit which is Document 525 for their cross examination. On that occasion you touched on the question which also made a part of your direct examination:
How far Georg Loerner had anything to do with the supply of clothes and food to the concentration camps. And on direct examination you said that he was not competent in these matters. Now, there are a number of other contradictions in your affidavits, such as in the one I just mentioned, 525, where you said under paragraph 19, that sometimes you discussed with Loerner to make sure that inmates were well-fed and clothed. I would like to ask you: Do you wish to express thereby that Georg Loerner was responsible that the clothes which came from Department B to the camp would be put at the disposal of these various inmates-or was his tasks at an end as soon as he had dealt with the applications which reached his office, from the point of view of quantity and quality?
A. The WVHA was a ministerial agency and, therefore, it was not his tasks to see to it and supervise that each inmate--because after all we did not have only six or seven hundred thousand inmates to lood after but also missions of soldiers--had his food at noon, or clothes. Our task at our level was only to plan and secure centrally; the actual providing of the individual soldier or inmate was of course the task of the commandos responsible. That could not be supervised from our level, high up on top this was practically impossible.
Q. Well, don't let us stop at the formal questions only and say what is not "my responsibility", according to the letter, I will not bother about; let us go a little further.
You said that you and Georg Loerner discussed the question that inmates should be well-fed and clothed. Were you of the conviction that inmates were well-fed and clothed?
A. That conviction I was not able to have after 1944 at least on account of the supply situation. Up to 1944 I was sure that everything possible was done, but if it wasn't adequate--which it was not later on-it would have been a contradiction to my conviction if I had said nevertheless, there is enough. For that reason I personally made efforts to have it implemented wherever possible to have food supplies sent to these camps.