Q. And you can testify that these inmates as they walked to and from their place of work, or Dest, appeared to be undernourished and ill, exhausted?
A. This applied to one part - that mostly applied to the Eastern workers or to the workers from the outside.
Q. Now, witness, have you ever heard the name Reinhardt?
A. I believe that I can recall this name in some connection.
Q. In what connection do you think that you recall the name?
A. I believe that in connection with the Osti I have heard this name on some occasion.
Q. What did you understand "Action Reinhardt" to mean?
A. The title "Action Reinhardt" was not clear to me at the time. However, I then asked several prisoners about it at the time and they felt that it had some connection with the Jews.
Q. You mentioned something about Osti. What was Osti?
A. About the Osti, the Eastern industries, I can only say something as far as the economic command was concerned. At the time of the DST Unterscharfuehrer Johann Sebastian Fischer dictated a memorandum to me which I wrote down.
Q. What was the "Eastern Industries"? Do you know?
A. The "Eastern Industries" was a company for the utilization of Jewish property and the utilization of Jewish labor.
Q. And Osti was controlled by Amtsgruppe W of the WVHA?
A. I cannot say that for certain because at that time I only saw the report as such, while the general file of the Osti did not exist at the time I was working there.
Q. Witness, I want to hand you Document NO-1271. Do you recognize that document?
A. Yes, I wrote this document. I wrote it myself.
Q. Is that the report on Osti written by Fischer?
A. That is the report, and I can remember it for the reason that the introduction begins with the following words: "SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Mummenthey, I have received in April 1944 the order to examine the administration of the Eastern Industries --"
DR. FROSCHMANN: I would like to ask the prosecution if the document which has just been presented has an exhibit number.
MR. MC HANEY: It does not have an exhibit number. It is not offered by the prosecution; it is simply being shown to the witness. He testified that he typed it. We will offer the document at a later date.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I wrote it.
THE PRESIDENT: If the document is not offered in evidence, it should not be read by the witness. Of course, he did that without your asking him but until it is offered in evidence the witness should not read it.
MR. MC HANEY: Very well, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: He has already testified that he wrote it.
MR. MC HANEY: Quite correct.
DR. FROSCHMANN: May it please the Tribunal, I wanted to know if the document which was just presented has already been submitted by the prosecution as evidence and already has been provided with an exhibit number.
THE PRESIDENT: No.
DR. FROSCHMANN: Then I would like to object to the presentation of the document until it has been furnished to the defense.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the objection is good. It hasn't been offered in evidence yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead.
Q (By Mr. McHaney) Witness, can you tell us what identification would appear on any letters which you actually transcribed when you worked in office Y-1? Is there any identification initial which might appear on the document?
A Please do not speak so loudly and please repeat the question once more. I did not understand.
(Interpreter repeated question.)
AAs far as the correspondence at the plant was concerned, W-1, and the dictation mark Dr. Schn and in my case the small k4, and in the case of other prisoners, the first initial of their family name.
Q Do you know anything about a commando which repaired and rebuilt watches in Oranienburg?
A I know that in Oranienburg in the so-called special camp there was a barracks where Jews were to produce so-called watches, the insides of watches.
Q You say this was a Jewish commando?
A Yes, it was so that the inmates of the barracks did not have any contact whatsoever with the other prisoners and the windows of this barracks were barred and according to what we were told at the time, Jews at that time were only allowed to stay in the barracks and were not allowed to have any contact whatsoever with the remaining part of the camp.
Q And what were these Jews doing?
A I have already stated, and I can only testify on the basis of what was told to me by the other prisoners, there was a so-called block eldest who was also in charge of a block in the special camp, and he told me that the Jews were manufacturing watches.
Q Have you ever seen Oswald Pohl, or did you ever see him during the time you were working in Oranienburg?
A On one or two occasions I have seen Pohl in the area of the stone processing plant.
Q Well, have you seen Pohl? That's what I asked you. I didn't understand your answer to be responsive.
A Yes, I have seen Pohl at the time.
Q And do you see Pohl in the dock over here?
A He is the first defendant in the first row.
MR. MCHANEY: I ask that the record show that the witness properly identified the defendant Pohl.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will so show.
Q Witness, do you know whether this commando of Jews working on watches in Oranienburg was under the control of Amtsgruppe W?
A No, I cannot say that.
MR. MCHANEY: I have no further questions at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: Cross examination.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. SEIDL (Counsel for defendant Pohl):
Q Witness, you are permanently residing at Hamburg?
A Yes.
Q How long have you been in Nurnberg?
A I have been here in Nurnberg since Tuesday.
Q Prior to your interrogation today have you been in this courtroom?
A Yes.
Q How many times were you here?
AAbout three times.
Q Have you also talked to other witnesses who were examined here, or who are yet to be examined?
A Yes, yesterday I talked to one witness.
Q What is his name?
A I believe that I have heard the name of Krystian. However, I did not understand the name exactly.
Q Have you talked to Dr. Engler?
A Yes, after all Dr. Engler is a friend of mine.
Q He is also to be examined here as a witness; is that correct?
A I cannot tell you that. In any case Dr. Engler gave my name as a witness.
DR. SEIDL: May it please the Tribunal, I make the request that the entire testimony of this witness be stricken from the record. According to the regulations of the Military Tribunal for Nurnberg it is prohibited that witnesses be allowed to be in the courtroom outside of their own examination and to talk to other witnesses.
I refer to Article 9 of the procedure and regulations for the Military Tribunal at Nurnberg which were issued by Military Government, and it states in Article 9:
"Witnesses are only to be present in the courtroom during their examination. During the proceedings witnesses are not allowed to talk to each other either before or after their examinations."
MR. MCHANEY: If the Tribunal please, I would ask that a decision on the motion be delayed until such time as prosecution has had an opportunity to study the rules. I do not have them in my possession. It is quite true that this witness has been in the courtroom during the last few days. He has been in Nurnberg for approximately a week. He was originally brought here with Dr. Engler with whom he worked in the AMT W-1 in Oranienburg. For various reasons he has not been put on the stand prior to today, and I do know that he has appeared here.
Normally we do not do that until such time as after they have testified. However, unless the rules of this Tribunal expressly provide, and I must confess I am not familiar with it, it is not customary to sequester a witness unless requested prior to the time of his appearance, by opposing counsel. And certainly I do not think it has customarily been considered sufficient justification to strike the testimony of a witness. As far as conferring with any witnessis concerned, as far as I know the only man he has talked to is Krysiak after Krysiak's testimony yesterday, and of course, his testimony does not in any way bear upon matters to which Krysiak testified.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the rule that you cite, Dr. Seidl? What number?
DR. SEIDL: May it please the Tribunal, approximately eight days ago -
THE PRESIDENT: Will you answer my question please? What is the number of the rule which you cited?
DR. SEIDL: The regulation which was handed to us by the Secretary General of the Tribunal is not provided with any number, but it has the headline Agency of Military Government, Uniform Regulations for Procedures for Tribunals at Nurnberg, and it is dated the 1st of April 1947.
May it please the Tribunal, unfortunately I do not have a copy in English. However, I thought that regulations which you receive here from the Secretary General's office, that they of course are also furnished to the Tribunal and the prosecution. However, may it please the Tribunal, I would also like to add that in the regulation of Article 9 which I have mentioned, it is not a special principle involved, but this is a principle which is contained in all legal books and legal regulations; also in the German Legal Code, and which, as far as I know, is also contained in the American Legal Code.
THE PRESIDENT: No, no, there is noting in the Americal Legal Code which excludes a witness from the courtroom or prohibits him from talking to other witnesses either before or after they testify. That fact may be shown, but there is nothing to prohibit it. I have never heard of it. In fact, I have never heard of this either.
MR. MCHANEY: The prosecution is laboring under the same difficulty, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I suspected so.
MR. MCHANEY: I would suggest that we defer ruling and that Dr. Seidl continue with such cross examination as he may have. Even though this rule exists prohibiting a witness from appearing in court or from conferring with a witness, it obviously does not require that the testimony of the witness be stricken.
It may require some remonstrance on the part of the Court directed to the prosecution, but certainly the fact that each case would have to be considered, if no harm has been caused by his attendance or if the witness with whom he had conferred is a witness who testified on matters which in no way bear upon his testimony, why quite obviously I think it is unnecessary to strike his testimony.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, this is not a rule of this Tribunal. It is a military regulation apparently, issuing from the Chief of the American occupying forces or from Military Government. If it develops that the rule has been violated we will reserve decision on the effect that that may have on the witness' testimony, but meanwhile, Mr. McHaney, perhaps you had better determine whether the Chief of Counsel or the the witness is the proper person to be committed to a concentration camp.
MR. MCHANEY: I shall do that, your Honor.
Q (By Dr. Seidl) Witness, you have testified that the concentration camps were established after the plants had been established. Can you give me the name of the DEST plant which already existed before the concentration camp at Dachau was established?
A I cannot give you any information at all about Dachau. I have answered the question for the reason because I still remember having a Reich business report at the time in which the principle was stated, that it had become necessary to bring the prisoners to perform useful work from the concentration camps, and for this reason the Camp Neuengamme originally was only established. I cannot give you the exact date anymore, but it was established from the very moment when the possibility of an economic use of Neuengamme existed.
Q. Can you tell me what DEST branch was located near Buchenwald?
A. The history of Buchenwald is unknown to me. I only know that at Buchenwald the so-called Bergstedt existed. However, I can not tell you just when it was established.
Q. How was it in the case of the Concentration Camp Stutthof?
A. As far as I know, the Concentration Camp Stutthof consisted of various plants. First of all, Stutthof was near Hoppehill, and I believe that I can still remember a third plant.
Q. I am going to snow you a document which has been presented by the Prosecution. It is Exhibit 77, Document NO-2432. It is contained in Prosecution Book No. IV. It is a letter of the Higher SS Police Leader -
THE PRESIDENT: What is the exhibit number?
DR. SEIDL: It is Exhibit 77. It is the first document in the Document Book No. IV. It is a letter from the Higher SS and Police Leader, the Reichsfuehrer SS. I quote:
"As I have reported earlier, after the dissolution of the remaining prisoner's camp near Danzig, in that respect a larger prisoner camp has been established. In this camp at present are approximately 3500 prisoners who, for the majority, were handed over by the State Police Headquarters in Danzig, and for the smaller part, by the headquarters in Bromberg and Graudenz."
And I go over the second paragraph which states:
"The camp, which is well-built and save, is guarded by police reservists from the State police administration of Danzig."
Now I come to page two, and I am only going to read one sentence here: "As the taking over of this prisoner's camp as a state concentration camp has been disapproved, I request that this camp be turned into a state camp, and that this camp be placed under my charge immediately."
And I ask you, witness, does this Prosecution document not show very clearly that the camp already had existed for a long time before anybody had thought of establishing a DEST plant there?
A. That may be right for Stutthof. In my statement I have expressly spoken of the business reports of the DEST.
Q. And from what period of time was this? Whet did it include?
A. As far as I know, it was a business report written in the year 1942. Of course, I am unable to give you the exact date. At the time I read this business report--I had to multiply it immediately -- I also can not give you any details about the individual plants.
Q. If I understand your testimony correctly, then this is one of your conclusions?
A. No, it is not a conclusion; out I believe that I can say that in the business report of the DEST, it was already written from the very wording...
Q. Well, did DEST have the possibility to establish concentration camps?
A. It did not have the possibility of establishing concentration camps.
Q. Then, at the very best, the DEST could only forward a suggestion to the agency which was competent for the establishment of concentration camps?
A. Jell, I did not give the reason why this was done --but I have only repeated what was contained in the business reports of the DEST. It is my opinion.
Q. Your opinion. Then your opinion will have to limit itself to the point that, at the very best, this could apply only to the plant after 1942.
A. Of course, I can not answer this question in the affirmative but I can only answer it in the connection during the time when the report was shown to me, or when I saw it. however, may I limit the date in that connection, insofar as the business report did not report to the business year 1942, but, for the most part, it was also the business report for other years. Whet the connections were between the establishment of concentration camps--that, of course, I was unable to see. I did not have as much insight.
Q. You have said that you have seen the defendant Pohl on two occasions at Oranienburg?
A. Yes.
Q. When was that?
A. I believe that was in the summer of 1944--it was in the summer and fall.
Q. Is it correct that Amtsgruppe D also had its seat at Oranienburg?
A. I do not know anything about Amtsgruppe D.
Q. Well, now, let us turn to another point, witness. in 1941, you were tried by the Special Court because of a violation of the law of 20 December 1934.
A. Yes.
Q. And after this punishment, you were transferred to the Concentration Camp Neuengamma?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were a political prisoner there?
A. Yes.
Q. There were also prisoners in the camp who were sent to the camp for other reasons than political reasons?
A. How am I to understand this question?
Q. Just as I have meant it. I asked you if habitual prisoners were also in the camp, whether there were also other social elements there.
A. When I came to Neuengamma in 1942 the camp was composed of so-called "Greens" who were the criminals, and further political prisoners, and then from the Jehovah's Witnesses, and finally at the end, or at the period of time, there were Jews. However, later on they were transported out of Neuengamma.
Q. You have said that habitual criminals were also in the camp. Is it correct that there were people who, because they had been punished many times before by criminal authorities, were interned for safe keeping?
A. No, that was a special chapter, as far as I can remember. They were people who were kept there for reasons of security. They had "S" Triangles. However, I only came into the camp laser on. Originally, as far as I can remember, only criminals had been sent there by the chief Germin criminal authorities, and they were only brought into the camp when they had already been punished previously several tames.
Q. When was the construction of the Klinker Works first begun?
A. I can only say that the Klinker Works -- at a period of then when, in March, 1942, I came into the camp - was just about to be constructed. That is to say, the outside of the building was standing already oat the machines were only installed later on. I can not give you any reason for the begin ling of the construction because I only came into the camp in March 1942.
Q. In connection with the establishment of these Klinker Works--and then there were buildings established; they were later where the production took place?
A. Will you please repeat the question once more?
Q. I shall repeat the question. In connection with the establishment of these works, there were also buildings established where, later on, the production took place?
A. Yes.
Q. You testified that these Klinker Works were the most modern buildings of this kind. What did you mean by that?
A. I meant that inside the Klinker Works, where the manufacturing processes were taking place, the whole work was being operated by machines. That is to say, presses were established there and a small electric working bench was constructed inside the hall. And, thus, the stones were brought into the stove, and all of the machines were rather new. So that the conclusion was that it was not very hard for me to reach.
Q. Were German civilian workers also employed in these plants?
A. Yes, we also had some German civilian workers there.
Q. And did you work there under the same conditions?
A. They did not have to work there under the same conditions because they were only foremen for certain fields, and there were only organs who had to assign the work.
Q. You have testified that the Klinker works' prisoners of the camp of Neuengamma were assigned?
A. Yes.
Q. Who in the concentration camp Neuengamma had to deal with the assignments--that is, within the camp administration, and who was the illegal camp administration in that camp? I can tell you that exactly, witness. In another trial, and also in this trial, a witness will be heard who certainly will not be unknown to you, and who was used to this expression "illegal camp administration."
That is the witness Dr. Eugen Kogon. He said that in every concentration camp, as far as he knew, the prisoners within the camp had the administration in their own hands.
A. I do not understand you......Yes, I understand you now. In Neuengamma, at that period of time when I came there, the situation was approximately as follows. What was understood to be good positions in the camp--as far as the Klinker Works were concerned--were positions occupied by the so-called habitual criminals. And inside the camp a second part was established: that was in the sense that the camp leader or the camp eldest at my time was a* *** political prisoner. And the person was in charge of the assignment of inmate labor was a criminal prisoner.
How things developed later on at Neungamma I can not tell you for the reason that later on I was transferred to Oranienburg. At Oranienburg I discovered another situation prevailing then under the illegal camp administration. That was mostly done by the political prisoners.
THE PRESIDENT: We are about to recess, and I was to announce that tomorrow we will recess at twelve thirty and will convene again at one-thirty on Thursday. I announce this so you can make the best use of your time. That is, from this time tomorrow until one thirty on Thursday you will be free. We will recess now until onethirty today.
THE MARSHAL: This Tribunal is in recess until 1330 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 15 April '47.)
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal No. 2 is again in session.
DR. SEIDL (Attorney for the defendant, Oswald Pohl.) Your Honor, today before the recess I made a proposal that this witness' statement be stricken out of the record. I shall now withdraw my request and I am doing this for the following reason: namely, that it can be seen from the statements made by the prosecution that he did not know this regulation up to this moment and that therefore he had no possibility whatsoever to brief the witness according to this regulation and to avoid that they be present in this court room before their examination and also talk with other witnesses. However, I shall withhold my right in case this should be necessary to refer to this insofar as this refers to any relevancy of the testimony.
THE PRESIDENT: That is quite right. You would have a perfect right to ask this witness whether he had talked to other witnesses or had heard their testimony or any other fact which might affect their credibility.
HERR HENRY KRUSE - resumed CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. SEIDL (Attorney for Defendant Pohl):
Q Witness, this morning you testified that you yourself had not seen the Defendant Pohl in the Klinker Works; however, that a certain man by the name of Bickel had mentioned to you when Pohl was in the Klinker Works. I shall ask you now, when did Bickel tell you that and what sort of statements did he make to you with reference to the time that this occurred, namely, when this Defendant Pohl was in the Klinker Works.
A I can not give you the exact date today after four years have already elapsed since then.
I can only tell you that my co-inmate at the time told me that. Bickel just told me that Pohl had been there and I couldn't say anything else after from that.
Q. The factories of Dest were in connection with the concentration camp, you said?
A Yes.
Q These factories within -- were these factories within the camp or were they outside?
A In Neuengamme, for protective purposes, they were inside the actual camp. However, they were surrounded by a chain of guards.
Q If those inmates in these factories were to be tried because of misdemeanor did the punishment take place by the commanders of the camp?
A No, through the camp administration.
Q What did the Political Department have to do with these things?
A Namely, this can be seen from the connection that in the morning when there was a roll call, it said that this and that inmate will be transferred to the Political Department, regardless of the fact if the inmate had actually been through an investigation or he had given any explanations of anything. He was just told to go to the Political Department. He was then transferred to it.
Q witness, the Political Department, if I am right, was a branch of the Secret Police?
A I am afraid to have to tell you, Counsel, that I did not know the inner connections between the Political Department and the camp administration.
Q. You further have testified that there was the possibility of receiving money from your dependents?
A. Yes.
Q. Did that possibility also exist at Sachsenhausen?
A. Yes, I received money regularly, both in Neuengamme and in Sachsenhausen.
Q. Was there a possibility at Sachsenhausen of receiving parcels from your relatives, parcels with food and clothing?
A. Yes. If I'm not wrong, the possibility was created in 1942, I believe toward the middle or near the end of the year. May I add this, that the first packages or parcels which were received by the inmates were not distributed to the inmates themselves but generally speaking were delivered in the SS writing room, under the supervision of an SS officer, and then they were distributed to their comrades. That applied to the first few days I spent there. However, later on, if someone had the means of receiving parcels from his family, he did receive various things from them. Later on it was the following way. Foodstuff was distributed at the end so that packages were opened in the presence of the inmates and handed out to them. That was done in case letters should be in the packages, or alcohol, firearms, or something else of that sort. Those things the inmates were forbidden to have and were, in other words, items that were not handed over to the inmates.
Q. If I understand your testimony correctly, then one could deduct from that the fact that since 1942 or 1943 and later the situation in those camps had changed for the better?
A. Yes, generally speaking, yes. I couldn't tell you what they were like in Neuengamme. They were very difficult for me. I didn't know how it was in Oranienburg either for the general inmates, and I couldn't tell you that because I did not have an exposed position there, but that's the way it was, generally speaking.
Q. You mentioned the Capos repeatedly. The Capos were also inmates?
A. Yes, sir, the Capos were also inmates.
Q. They did have certain privileges compared with other inmates, didn't they, and they also had supervisory power?
A. I want to put it even a little bit stronger. Not only did they have certain privileges which resulted in the fact that a general inmate could receive forty cigarettes a month whereas a Capo could get five hundred, that is, if they had all that. In most cases they did not have that. That is why the corruption resulted. But aside from that from the year 1942 they had the power to administer strokes, to punish the people. At least that applied to the concentration camp of Neuengamme.
Q. In every camp there was also a block eldest?
A. Every block, as far as block discipline, distribution of food, and so forth were concerned, had a block eldest who was in charge of those things. This block eldest was also an inmate.
Q. One can deduct from that that the camp administration, as far as the prison camps of the SS and the camp commanders are concerned, showed that external order was kept?
A. Yes, let's say they had sort of a self-administration.
Q. You mean the inmates did?
A. Yes, the inmates had sort of a self-administration, as you mentioned yourself. They themselves took care of the order in their barracks. Apart from that they had to reply with these directives which were issued them by these block eldests.
THE PRESIDENT: We don't get what the word is. A block "elder", was that the word? The interpreter may tell me.
INTERPRETER: Block eldest, sir. That was the man who was actually in charge of the barracks. He was the eldest; he was nominated by the inmates themselves.
THE PRESIDENT: The eldest man, eldest, or leader?
INTERPRETER: Yes, that's right.
Q. Would you tell this Tribunal what the block eldest's tasks were and who was under his charge?
A. At the time when I spent considerable time in Neuengamme, the block eldest had conversations with the block leaders, then the lower camp administration, and then he had the following practice.
He had to see to it that the inmates had their billets. Furthermore, he was in charge of distributing the mail within the block. He also had to bear the responsibility of safety within the inside ring camp administration. For instance, if one of the inmates was used to do heavy work, he had something to say about it. It would be rather difficult for me to state everything here.
Q. How many people was he in charge of?
A. That depended on various circumstances. In the beginning, early in the time when I was there, there were approximately 200 to 250 inmates in the block. Later on when the great transports came, there were 400 to 500 inmates in one block.
Q. These block eldests, as they were inmates themselves, had certain privileges?
A. Well, up to 1942 they did have some sort of privileges, but they had power only insofar as this applied to their powers within the camp and also within their own block.
Q. You also used the term "external camp administration or leadership". What you probably meant by that - and you mentioned it before was the so-called self-administration of the inmates?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, when did you enter the legal department of the Amt W-1?
A. I believe it was in January 1944.
Q. How did this transfer actually take place?
A. It happened in the following manner. My friend and co-inmate Dr. Engler was with me in the same block. Dr. Engler had been transferred as a lawyer for the inmates to the legal expert of the legal department, Dr. Maroschek. Dr. Maroschek was looking for a clerk at the time. He asked Dr. Engler about it. So in this connection, when Dr. Maroschek was released and Dr. Schneider took over, Dr. Schneider asked for me in Amt W-3.
Q. In Amt W-1 were there any more inmates employed there?
A. Yes, when I was there, there were two or perhaps four inmates. As far as I know, only two inmates were employed.
Q. I take it that you had certain privileges in that position?
A. Well, yes, we had privileges, but only insofar as we were not subjected to the camp discipline about work. For instance, if two or three inmates would go to the Verwaltungs Office there, we just stepped out together and went in the room.
Q. The same were the circumstances and conditions in the direct office there?
A. Yes, just about. There was just a change of field of tasks, that's all.
A. You furthermore stated something that happened or referred to the Bohemia. I take it that most of your statements were based on hearsay and also on the knowledge of the trials, of which you cannot say with certainty that they were complete?
A. As far as the Bohemia question is concerned, as to how I had knowledge of it, I can say now that I actually did base my opinion on the files which I went through with **at certain interest.
Q. You did not know, however, whether these trials were complete or not?
A. Well, that was quite a voluminous file, the Bohemia files, that is. You know, these Leitz files were full of those documents and pages.
Q. When you answered the question which referred to the Reinhardt Action, you stated that you knew that from another inmate.
A. No, I did not say that. I simply said that I believe that I learned the name sometime, somehow. Whether that came from another inmate or perhaps even from Mr. Fischer or whether I just listened to a conversation between Fischer and Bolter I did now know, and I could not tell you that today.
Q. From your own observations you could not tell me anything about the action Reinhardt? Your knowledge is based only on hearsay?
A. If you want to ask me about the Reinhardt Action in single questions, that is the way I shall formulate my answer, yes.
Q. Then does that also apply to the testimony that refers to the Osti?
A. The questions of the Osti or the knowledge of it occurred here. I knew about those things. But I spent quite a few hours studying this problem and writing letters about it.
DR. SEIDL: I have no further questions. Your Honor.
DR. MUELLER: Dr. Mueller for the defendant Georg Loerner.
EXAMINATION BY DR. MUELLER:
Q. Witness, how long were you in the Office W-1?
A. I was in it for approximately one year.
Q In other words, from January 1944 --
A. --- to January 1945.
Q. You said this morning approximately the following. When you were in the Amt W-1, the correspondence of the DWB appeared there very often.
A. Not only did I see letters of the DWB and the W Amt but also of other offices. If I may reconstruct the whole thing, those were yellow envelopes with the title of German economy factories, plants.