A.- No, it wasn't Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: What, other companies were you ever business manager of?
A.- I was the business manager of the House and Real Estate, GmBH. It was established later on.
THE PRESIDENT: Any others?
A.- I can't recall any others, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Were you ever business manager of any concern that was in the DWB?
A.- No, I was never a business manager.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, to clarify this matter may I state the following. I had simply asked the witness on Friday whether he was a business manager or a prokurist of DWB for the very simply reason that the prosecution stated him allegedly to have been a business manager of the DWB.
THE PRESIDENT: We have the transcript of his testimony, so we can read it.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q.- Now, do take a look at this document NO-2176, which is Exhibit number 402, and it is contained in Document Book No. 14, on page 104 of the German and 115 of the English Document Book. Take another look at it, witness, and I shall ask you -- does the business order under Roman Numeral One describe the facts as they were at the time correctly?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Does the business order state all those things accurately with reference to the activity of the business, in 1942 under this Roman number Two?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Those single family buildings which are contained under Roman Numeral One -
THE PRESIDENT: You are hurrying the interpreter, Dr. Gawlik. Give them more time, also the witness.
Q.- Those buildings contained under Roman Number One, which were Jewish Property, were they purchased while you were a member or business manager there?
A.- As far as I can recall, I did not purchase those real estates, or those pieces of land. The document also shows that it wasn't until the end of that time that I was promoted to business manager. It could be possible in any case that some signature was necessary for this or that real estate or that piece of land, then, of course, I probably gave the signature all right, but I couldn't swear to it.
Q.- I would like again to draw your attention to page 105, which is contained in Document Book No. 14. This is the document referred to above. Are all those pieces of land contained on that page, were they purchased by you, witness?
A.- With the exception of one piece of land, they are all the same ones. I don't believe that I purchased those. The same applies to this as what I stated to the first question.
Q.- What do you know about the price of the purchase of these single family pieces of land which were purchased as Jewish property?
A.- The pieces of land where purchased according to the unit price prescribed by community law.
Q.- What do you understand the unit price prescribed by taxation law, witness?
A.- By that I mean the value which is fixed by the authority issuing of fixing the taxes. It is according to this, that the tax is fixed. It is never lower than the value of the piece of land. For obviously, the taxation authority thinks it most important not to receive taxes which are too low.
Q.- Now, witness, let me draw your attention to page 107 of the Document Book referred to before; it is stated there that the pieces of land were sold much lower, or purchased much lower than the actual circulation value. Isn't that in contrast with your testimony, witness?
A.- No.
Q.- Could you tell me why it doesn't appear to be in contrast with your testimony?
A.- Due to the condition or the situation of the war, the circulation value of those pieces of land will climb. The unit value was the same because the unit value was only evaluated every five years by the taxation authorities. The pieces of land for that reason were purchased under the circulation price which had changed, of course, during the war time, but at least they were paid as much as the unit price. The idea of the House and Home Building Company's fault, therefore, was that they did not pay the prices had climbed due to the war. At least, that is the way it is explained in this document.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
This also follows from page 107 and 108 which contains a chart where the prices are contained individually. Then, so that no wrong impression is created here, I would like to state that all those pieces of land were not "Aryanized." By aryanization one means the following: According to the regulation concerning the utilization of Jewish property which was issued by the Medium Administrative Office--which in Berlin was the State president and which compels the Jew to sell his piece of land. This is not quite correct because in these cases, in our cases, this order had not been given them, but rather one of our members of our company went and negotiated with the Jews on a voluntary basis.
Apart from that the Jews were very much interested in selling their real estate or their pieces of land to that company because, according to the regulation which I just stated before, a Jew had to have the permission of the highest finance president before he could sell his piece of land. That was the Medium Administrative Office with the taxation authority.
Now, if a Jew was looking for somebody to purchase that piece of land who would be agreeable to the Jews, and the taxation office didn't want to have that--then the taxation authority did not give the Jew permission to sell. Whereupon they told him--and actually prescribed to him--to actually sell that land to somebody else. Now, that civilian employee of ours had negotiations with the Jews. Then they were very much interested in selling that piece of land to him--as improbable as it may seem--because we could actually see to it that purchase or sale was approved. When I took over the company, after all, I was charged to eliminate certain misconditions there, I immediately had a Bilanz set up. I found out that certain amounts were still due to the Jews, and I saw to it that all those amounts were paid to the Jews by transferring the amounts to their bank accounts.
In order to give clarity to the Tribunal about all those things, the Jews could not dispose freely over those amounts, but only according to the regulations which had been issued by the Reich Government, and only up to 500 marks per month. But, according to my legal feeling, as Court No. II, Case No. 4.a lawyer, I said to myself, "Jews have to have their money"--and I always acted accordingly as long as I was with the WVHA, I shall speak of a few more such cases before my examination is terminated.
Q During that time, while you were a business manager of the Public Dwelling G.m.b.H., did the company at any time employ concentration camp inmates?
A No.
Q I shall now show you Document NO-2153; which is Exhibit No. 307, as contained in Document Book No. 11, page 92 of the German document book.
Doesn't the contents of this document contrast with your testimony?
A No; this document bears the date of 1939-
THE PRESIDENT: Document Book?
DR. GAWLIK (Counsel for defendant Volk): That is document book No. 11, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit number?
DR. GAWLIK: Exhibit No. 307, Your Honor. The number is NO-2153, Your Honor.
WITNESS: No, as I stated before, the document is, dated 1939 and refers to the activities and happenings in 1938. However, I only became a business manager in November, 1941. During my activity no inmates were employed, as the company during the war did not carry out any further construction activity. Even during my activity it was never known to me, it never became known to me, that prior to my time any inmates had been employed. I repeatedly asked employees how those buildings were built at the time and who had built them--but nobody could give me any information on the construction firms. Dr. Salpeter was no longer there; he was in the war; and I only saw this document here for the first time in this trial.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say that this company did no more building after you became business manager?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
WITNESS: Yes; Your Honor, no more construction activity was carried out from the beginning of the war until I came in, and even when I was a business manager no more buildings were built by this G.m.b.H.
THE PRESIDENT: Buildings were built while Dr. Salpeter was business manager?
A I couldn't tell you that, Your Honor. All I know is that Dr. Salpeter was in charge of the company as Amtehief of Office III-A: that was when the Office Administration & Economy still existed. Now, I really don't know, Your Honor, if Dr. Salpeter was business manager at the time.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q How many people were employed in that company?
A Four persons were employed in that company, and these four persons also had administered the House & Home Building Company which was later on established, and they also procured buildings for the people who had lost their homes in the war--because I was still a referent at the time--building referent--and after 1943 I was the so-called Evakuierungs referent, which stands for Evacuation Expert or Secretary. The explanation is that I had to see to it that the people who had lost their homes through bombings could be taken outside of town, and that applied to the people who came and saw me about it.
Q Was your activity as a business manager limited to a certain term in advance?
A Yes, as a business manager I was to stop being a business manager when the company had been taken care of, according to the regulations prevailing at the time. This actually took place later, towards the end of 1944, or early in 1945. That was when I joined the armed forces in the field. I had changed the company entirely and made it comply with the regulations.
Q I shall now speak about the Osti. When was the Osti established, witness?
A The Osti was established on the 12th of April, 1943. The 13th of March, rather. This can be seen from Document Book No. 19. It is on Court No. II, Case No. 4.page 67 of the German document book.
The number of the document is NO-1271, and I don't have the exhibit number.
Q The Prosecution has stated that under charge of Staff W-where you also are contained--the Osti had been established for the purpose of utilizing both Jewish property and Jewish labor. Was the Osti established under the supervision of Staff W?
A No.
Q Was the establishment of the company part of the tasks of Staff W?
A No.
Q Who was it that actually initiated the establishment?
A Mr. Pohl is the person who initiated the establishment of the Osti.
Q And how far did Staff W participate in the establishment, witness?
A Staff W had not participated in the establishment.
Q What was the development of the conference which took place on the 13th of February, witness?
A In the morning of the 13th of February, I had gone to see the Vormundschafts Gericht (Tribunal) for Herr Pohl. Herr Pohl, on the 12th of December, 1942, had gotten married again, and his wife had three children from their previous marriage. According to the legal regulations with reference to family, and according to our code, a woman who gets married again and brings children into her marriage has to have a person to take charge of the children. Mr. Pohl was to become the person to take charge of the children. That was the reason why I went to see the Vormundschafts Tribunal. I can recall all those details very well.
When I arrived later on, my secretary told me that Herr Pohl had already phoned twice. Immediately was to go to his room, that there was a conference going on there. I went to the office and reported to Mr. Pohl. Herr Loerner, Dr. Hohberg and Dr. Horn were present. Dr. Horn had a letter before him and he asked all sorts of questions to Pohl. Pohl stated that I should listen; he told me to listen to him. Mr. Horn had Court No. II, Case No. 4.asked him a few questions from that letter, which questions Pohl could not answer.
He stated very briefly and in short terms that Horn should go to Lublin first, take a look at the entire matter there on the spot, and then contact Globocnik.
Pohl said he did not want to be asked silly questions just as if he were a little school boy, by Herr Horn. He further said to Dr. Horn that he absolutely had a free-hand with the exception of very important decisions, upon which he should contact him and ask him about it.
Thereupon, as I stated before, Pohl left the office, aggravated as he was, and he told me to come along with him and report to him what I had found out at the Tutorship court, and what I had succeeded in getting through.
I would like to state one more sentence here; namely, the explanation as given by Georg Loerner was correct--not the one given by Dr. Hohberg. The questionnaire which is contained in the document book was neither seen by Herr Pohl nor by Herr Loerner, nor by myself. I only saw the questionnaire here while looking through those documents. Nor was it that Herr Horn had asked me to come to the conference, as stated by Dr. Hohberg--but rather Pohl had.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until one forty-five.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until 1345.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 28 July 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. GAWLIK: If the Tribunal please, I shall submit the photostatic copy of Document NO-1290. There was some doubt what date was the correct on and I find it is either 22d First 1943 or 22d Eleventh 1943. From the photostatic copy I see that the date must be 22d January. May my secretary submit this document?
JUDGE MUSMANNO: What about the date of receipt? Is that January 30? There are two dates on the letter.
DR. GAWLIK: It was 22d of January or 22d of November. That was the point in dispute, the entry stamp.
THE PRESIDENT: Plainly there is a mistake on the original. It's dated 22d January 1943 and the date received 30th of November, 1943.
DR. GAWLIK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps it laid on somebody's desk for eleven months. I have known that to happen, but it probably is a mistake in the stamp, so the date 30th November is probably wrong. We will consider it as having been written 22 January 1943.
DR. GAWLIK: By that then you would have to assume 22d of November, Sir, because the entry stamp shows that date. There are two possibilities of a mistake: Either the date has been wrongly written, which may be the most obvious one, because otherwise the entry stamp would be wrong.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have no way to find out which was wrong. Perhaps it makes no different. Perhaps it isn't important.
DR. LEO VOLK - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. GAWLIK (Attorney for Defendant Volk):
Q Before the recess we discussed the meeting of 13 February about the Osti. Did you take part in that meeting?
A No, I did not say one word. Incidentally, apart from Dr. Horn, nobody spoke at all.
Q Please take Document NO-1270, Exhibit 161, which is in Volume XIX on page 5 of the Document Book.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Page what?
DR. GAWLIK: Page 5.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Does this document describe the meeting correctly?
A This document has not been signed by Dr. Horn; as far as I took part in the meeting, it only lasted a few minutes. This approximately, as I recall, give the contents more or less correctly. I must admit that Dr. Horn has somewhat colored this document, because he would have been reluctant to have written it all down -- just what happened -- because that would not have been very flattering to him.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: The witness testified that Document 1270 was not signed by Dr. Horn. The copy in the English Document Book is signed by Dr. Horn in Berlin on 13-2-43.
THE WITNESS: No, Your Honor, the photostatic copy does not have a signature. Here Dr. Horn has only been written in brackets. Had he signed it and the signature had been illegible, from the typewritten document one could have seen that Dr. Horn wrote it. That is how these things, or, at least, many things, were done in the WVHA, but this document was not signed by Dr. Horn. I have compared the photostatic copy.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Has the Secretary General the original photostatic copy, NO-1270? This very plainly shows it was signed.
The photostat shows signed on the typewriter in brackets.
THE WITNESS: Yes, that was the usual thing to do when a copy of any other document was finished. The name was put underneath in brackets so that if somebody has an illegible signature it becomes quite clear who had signed that document, but it has not actually been signed in this case.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Who drew up the foundation contract for Osti?
A Dr. Wilhelm Schneider. This becomes clear from Document NO-1271, which is in Volume XIX on page 67 and it says -
DR. GAWLIK: This is Exhibit 491, if your Honors please.
A It is the business report by Osti on page 2 under "A", "Legal Foundations of Osti". I quote: "The company was formed on 12 March 1943 (No. 169/43 of the Register of Dr. Wilhelm Schneider) and then the contract was drawn up."
Q Please look at Document NO-551, which is Exhibit 382 in Volume XIV on page 5 of the English Book. In that document, Osti is described as a subsidiary company of the DWB, is that correct?
AAlthough Osti is described here as a subsidiary company of DWB, actually it says, "T", which stands for subsidiary company. It is not correct. It is wrong.
Q How do you explain that mistake?
A Whoever made up this list made a mistake. When you look at the document, you must be reminded that it has not been signed. I think it is not entirely unlikely that especially in view of this error Pohl did not sign it.
Q Who would have been entitled to receive the shares, if Osti had been a subsidiary company of DWB?
A That would have had to go the DWB, GmbH.
Q And who was the owner of the shares?
A Pohl with 75,000 Marks and Georg Loerner with 25,000 Marks on a trusteeship basis. This can be seen from Document NO-1271 on page 67 of Volume XIX, Exhibit 491, which we have just discussed. There it says expressly that the capital was decided and fixed at 100,000 Marks by contract. From there Pohl took over 75,000 Marks and Georg Loerner, 25,000 Marks. The capital was paid in 25% in cash.
Q Did Staff W direct the Osti?
A No.
Q Can you give us a reason for that?
A Certainly. First, the first business manager of Osti was SS-Obergruppenfuehrer and Lt. General of the Police Globocnik.
The second business manager was Dr. Horn. Authority to issue orders was placed with the Board of Directors, the Aufsichtsrat. No member of Staff W was on the Board, only high SS officers, such as Pohl, as Chairman of the Board and as his deputy SS-Obergruppenfuehrer and General of the Police and also State Secretary of the Police and the Governor General Krueger. Another member on the Board was SS-Gruppenfuehrer and Lt. General of the Waffen-SS Georg Loerner and SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ferdinand Sammern-Frankeneck. When the Board of Directors was changed no member of Staff W was invited but the SS SS Economist in Cracow SS-Standartenfuehrer Schellin. This becomes clear from Document NO-1271, Exhibit 491 in Volume XIX on page 67.
DR. GAWLIK: It is on page 64 of the English Book if your Honors please.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A This is what it says there. "By a decision of June 1943 this Board of Directors was confirmed: Ministerial Director Oswald Pohl, Chairman, Friedrich Wilhelm Krueger, Deputy Chairman, Georg Loerner of Berlin, Dr. Ferdinand von Sammern-Frankenegg of Warsaw; SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Krueger has resigned as of the 20th of May, 1943. Dr. Ferdinand von Sammern-Frankenegg has left the Board. Newly elected was the SS Economist of Cracow Schellin." Although it says "Schelling" there, it is a mistake.
Second, Globocnik says in his report to Himmler himself that it was he who directed the Osti. That becomes clear from a document in Volume XIX, which is on page 93. It is Document NO-057, which is Exhibit 487. I shall quote. This is what the report from Globocnik to Himmler says, "Osti and the DAW were enterprises which I directed myself, whereas other enterprises, such as the aircraft factory of Heinkel, were only looked after by me." He contrasts here being in charge and looking after a plant. I think that this document is self-explanatory.
Third, as Osti was not a subsidiary company of DWB, it could not be connected by a corporation contract. It was independent.
Fourth, the members of Staff W were unable to give orders to Globocnik as the business manager. He was a Lt. General of the Police, whereas in Staff W the members of Staff W, especially myself, were much lower in rank. Globocnik was under the Higher SS and Police Leaders of Cracow, which was under SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Krueger in disciplinary measures. Therefore, Pohl had to appoint the Board of Directors of Osti in order to be able to give orders to Globocnik.
Fifth, the immediate management of Osti becomes evident from Document NO-1262, which is on page 109 of Volume XIX. It is Exhibit 495. There it expressly states that Pohl directed the Osti himself. It says there by an order of the Main Office Chief of the 23d of March it is hereby ordered -
Sixth, the secret file note NO-519, which is in Volume III on page 75.
DR. GAWLIK: On page 74 of the English Book.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
AAlso shows that Osti was not under Staff W. The 10 labor camps in the Lublin area are being transmuted into concentration camps. The document shows that Dr. Horn had several SS officers, such as Pohl, Loerner, Schellin, and Globocnik. With Dr. Horn they were all present at this meeting, but not one member of Staff W.
Seventh, it is remarkable also that Osti is not mentioned in the office plan of Office Group D under W enterprises, but under K, which stands for Lublin. That becomes clear from Document NO-597, which is in Volume XIII on page 72.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Why was the OSTI liquidated?
A I had no details of knowledge about this. I assume that because Globocnik was transferred to Trieste.
Q Please look at Document NO 1906, Exhibit 493, in Volume XIX, on page 91 of the English Document Book, and Pages 102 and 92 of the English Document Book also. There are two decisions concerning the liquidation of OSTI, dated December 1943, and March 1944. What is the explanation that there are two decisions made?
A In the document on page 92 of the English Document Book, that is legally speaking wrong. Globocnik was not called away as a business manager. Therefore, according to GmbH Law, both Horn and Globocnik were liquidators. Globocnik was not supposed to be a liquidator, because he had been transferred to Trieste. When the Registry Court, or District Court raised an objection on 1 March 1944, a new decision was taken, which is the decision in Exhibit No. 493, on page 91, of the English Document Book. That decision is formally speaking correct in accordance with GmbH laws. There it states under No. 1, expressly, that Globocnik had resigned as a business manager.
Q For what reasons were the books of OSTI handed over to the DWB?
A No special reason applied here. The books according to German Commercial law had to be kept for ten years by the partner. As Pohl did not have room to keep them in his own office, he selected one of his subordinate companies, as according to the document the partner quitting has to name a person who could keep the books, and the DWB were named for that purpose.
Q Did the DWB take over the books?
A No, the liquidation was discontinued by Pohl's order, which becomes clear from Exhibit No. 495. It is in Book XIX of the German book, on page 109 in the German Book, and, I'll just quote from this document: "By order of the Main Office Chief of 23 March, it has been ordered that the OSTI be continued. We request there for to cancel the liquidation of the OSTI at an early date." This document also shows that Court No. II, Case No. 4.the OSTI was immediately under Pohl.
Q Please take Document NO 1271, which is Exhibit No. 491, in Volume XIX, on page 65. When did you hear first of the contents of this report?
A I heard first of this here in Nuernberg.
Q When you worked in Staff-W, or as Prokurist of DWB, or as Pohl's personal assistant, did you hear anything of this report?
A No.
Q Do you know of the contents of the report now?
A Yes, I know it now, of course.
Q Which of the facts mentioned therein were known to you on the basis of your work for the WVHA?
A I can not recall that anything of these facts was known to me. I did not worry very much about OSTI, as the OSTI was always a closed book to me.
Q How can you explain the facts that the contents in the record remained unknown to you while you were with the WVHA?
A I was Pohl's personal secretary, let's call it. I was the expert for dwelling matters. I was in charge of it, and I had the reorganizing of two companies from a legal point, and from 1943 on I was the expert for evacuations. These tasks particularly in the last part of the war overworked me considerably. Then I was also in charge with the legal department of Staff-W and the Prokurist of DWB. I had to distribute dwellings as an expert for the settlement of Zhelendorf. These tasks claimed so much of my time throughout the day that I did not have a moments time to think of or make decisions about other companies, which were not part of my duties. During those years I mentioned I did not even read one book, as so many people came to see me when I was on duty. People who did not know how to be brief and concise. The result was that throughout the day I was busy on conferences, and only after four or five o'clock in the evening did I find the time to dictate my own letters. Then, furthermore, wives of soldiers were calling up, and those of dead soldiers, and bombed out families came, and unburdened Court No. II, Case No. 4.their miseries to me, and asking me to help them, and, as I had to help them I could not cut them short.
Even if I could not help them, at least, I had to find a kind word for them. That was what I had to do. That was my duty.
Q Now, about the Litzmanstadt. When were you there at Litzmannstadt?
A In February 1944.
Q Why did you go there?
A In order to accompany Oberfuehrer Baier. I was to find out what legal status the enterprises were to be given, which were working in the Litzmannstadt Ghetto.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say Kronstadt. We did not understand what you were talking about?
DR. GAWLIK: No, the ghetto "Litzmannstadt".
THE WITNESS: Litzmannstadt. Lodz it is called today.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Please continue.
A I was to accompany Oberfuehrer Baier, and was to find out what the legal status of the enterprises were, which were working in the Ghetto of Litzmannstadt. The question whether the Ghetto should be changed into a concentration camp was not part of my duties, that in no way touched upon my tasks. I was not in a position to say anything about that, because I had never worked on a task of that sort. Pohl had his own agency for that sort of thing, as I have said repeatedly, I only looked after matters pertaining to civil law only.
Q Who gave you the orders to go to Litzmannstadt?
A Pohl. Pohl told me he did not have time, that I and Baier had to go together.
Q What was the cause for this trip?
AAs I remember it, an order of Himmler to Pohl to the effect that the economic enterprises of the Litzmannstadt Ghetto were important for the supply of the Eastern Armies, as regard textile and other clothes. Himmler gave the order to Pohl to transfer the enterprises to Berlin, as Court No. II, Case No. 4.Baier told me, Himmler had given the order earlier to transform this Ghetto into a concentration camp.
Q Tell us what you did while in Litzmannstadt?
A In Litzmannstadt Baier and Dr. Horn made negotiations. I was present without taking a particular active part, because the whole problem was unfamiliar to me. Baier said to him that it was impossible to transfer the enterprises to Lublin, because thereby production would be deferred by months. Dr. Horn said in reply that the State Police agency in Litzmannstadt had received the order from Himmler through Office-IV of the RSHA to transform the Ghetto into a concentration camp.
Q What did you think personally of this?
A When I heard I asked Baier whether I could tell him something when he was alone. I knew Baier, and I knew that you could talk more freer with Baier than to any other man. I said, "Oberfuehrer, I don't understand why they should be incarcerated into a concentration camp, because here they are working in the Ghetto and in their own native soil; they are with their families, and also they are not endangering peace and security, because I thought of what the protective custody order said on the basis of the Weimar Constitution in 1933.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q Well, what did you do over there? Did you just listen in and then left without doing anything?
A No, I told Baier, first of all, I didn't understand why Jews should be incarcerated into a concentration camp. Second...
Q (Interrupting) I'm talking about what you did at Litzmannstadt.
A In Litzmannstadt we only inspected the enterprises.
Q Well, did you do anything besides look?
A No.
Q Did anybody else in the party do anything?
A I don't think so. I didn't see anybody do anything.
Q Well, did you see the inmates working there?
A Yes.
Q They were in the concentration camp, inmates, Jews, and were working there?
A They were all Jews and they were working, yes.
Q And they were imprisoned?
A Well, prison is not really the right term because the soldiers, the police, the SS were outside the barbed wire. Inside the barbed wire, there were Jewish policemen and the enterprises were in charge of Jewish foremen. It was a self-administration of the Jews themselves. They did everything themselves.
Q Of course, it was self-administered on the inside, but the Jews were incarcerated in there by the Reich.
A Yes, I heard that the Jews, since 1939, were concentrated in this ghetto but when they made applications to their Jewish administration they could go into the town, but only special Jews were given such permission. This is how it was described to me when I inspected, and the man who explained that to me was the Chairman of the Jewish Administration.
Q We understand what the system of the ghetto was. Now, when you went back did you report to Pohl what you had seen?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A Yes.
Q Did you make a written report, or did you make an oral report?
A I made a written report for Herr Baier which is part of the documents here. Then, also, I made an oral report to Pohl. I told Pohl that I didn't understand why Jews should now be incarcerated into a concentration camp on top of everything else. I had no sympathy with that idea. I also told Pohl - I can repeat that verbatim - that Gauleiter Greiser was a terrific crook. He did not even observe the laws which his own Fuehrer had issued because the ghetto, if you observe the Jew laws, the ghetto should have been the property of the German Reich with its machines. Herr Greiser did not take the money for the German Reich but for the Party and thus financed the Party, the NSDAP, which he was not allowed to do, which I put down in this file note here. Pohl said to me: "Don't worry. After the war so many people will be fired whom you are not thinking of now even."
Q So many people will be what?
A So many officers will be dismissed from their high positions after the war.
Q Well, now, while I'm talking to you about this, did Pohl make any reply to you when you told him that you didn't like the setup of the ghetto, that it was wrong, that Jews shouldn't be imprisoned just because they were Jews? What, if anything, did Pohl say in reply?
AAll that Pohl told me was "I shall myself see to it that the Jews will not be put into a concentration camp".
Q Were you with the WVHA in 1943 when Frank left the WVHA?
A Yes.
Q Do you know under what circumstances and for what reason he left the WVHA in 1943?
A Yes.
Q Tell us, please.
AA few weeks before I met Gruppenfuehrer Frank on the stairs and this is what he told me:
"Volk" (or he always said "Dr. Volk") "You look awfully bad this Court No. II, Case No. 4.morning.