Whereupon I went to see the adjutant and the adjutant said that Herr Pohl was very busy with very urgent matters and couldn't possibly give an audience to anybody. Whereupon I told him that I would call Herr Pohl and asked him to connect me and asked Pohl to please see Dr. Hoffman right away. After half an hour Pohl told me Hoffmann could come and see him. Hoffman then was away all day long. In the evening he told me that Herr Pohl had sent him to an SS Gruppenfuehrer who was the chief dispenser and that there he had succeeded in having one whole wagon load sent to Erzingen with four men as a crew and full of medicine. That's all I know about this matter.
Q: Did Hoffmann tell you that more 230 had died there in 8 weeks in this construction detail?
A: Herr Dr. Hoffmann didn't tell me a thing about it. He just told me that an epidemic had broken out.
Q: Witness, you held a managerial position in this firm, didn't you? In Schiefer-Oel?
A: I? No.
Q: Let me show you a document that may throw some light on this matter. I haven't had time to have it translated, but will you look at page 3 of the document and see if that doesn't help your recollection? First, will you tell us what this document is?
A: This is a list of the company members of the Slate-Oil Company, Limited, signed by the Syndikus Dr. Leo Volk, Berlin, Lichterfelde West, 95 thousand marks, Berlin 5,000 marks.
Q: Does it show what position you held in the Schiefer-Oel Company?
A: I remember now. That is correct; if the document is correct here. This was written before a Notary Public Schneider, then I appeared in this Schiefer-Oel G.mb.H. as a representative probably, because Herr Loerner was not there, and besides that G.m.b.H. was nothing but a cloak. However, I was to release the shares immediately. The Schiefer-Oel G.m.b.H. never did work.
Q: I am just asking what position this document shows that you held.
A: Herr Poehl had ordered me to go there, as trustee of their company with 5,000 marks so that this company under cloak could be founded.
Q: I want to show you some additional documents which further indicate your activity in this matter, and first I show you NO-3901, which I will mark as prosecution's exhibit 308.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: 608.
MR. ROBBINS: I am sorry, 608 MR. ROBBINS:
Q: Do you recall this document, witness?
A: Let me finish it for a minute, please. Yes, I was present at that conference.
Q: This memorandum is signed by you, is it not?
A: Yes, I was present there in order to give a certificate on the conference, or as this is called, a conference notice.
Q: And the difficulties in connection with the clothing of the prisoners and in connection with the housing of the Estonians was discussed at this meeting?
A: The housing of the Esthonians, well they were not inmates. That can be seen from the following sentence. And their employees. The Estonians were free manpower. They were trained specialists concerning the Slate-Oel; it is known all over the world, that the Esthonians were the best in that field.
Q: Well, who is referred to by the word "prisoners" in the second sentence?
A: It is stated there -- "Difficulties arose, particularly in connection with the clothing of the prisoners."
Q: What is the word used there? Is it "Haeftlinge"?
A: Prisoners' clothing -- not prisoners.
Q: Well, the document is referring to the clothing of prisoners, is that right, clothing of Haeftlinge?
A: Yes. You see, the Slate-Oel Scientific Research Company which wanted to have that plant constructed, they used inmates, but that company was not part of the WVHA.
And Herr Pohl in his capacity as Chief of Amtsgruppe D was responsible for the clothing of inmates, and Amtsgruppe D by Georg Loerner respectively.
Q: And that is shown by the second paragraph of this document, isn't it?
A: That's why ...
Q: Just answer my question. It is true that you asked Sommer to assign 79 guards to this location, isn't it?
A: I received that order from Herr Pohl. I was to pass it on to Amtsgruppe D as a messenger.
Q: Just answer my questions, will you? You asked Sommer to assign 79 guards to this work location, yes or no?
A: No.
Q: Now, do we have to go back over these documents? Isn't that perfectly clear from the documents that have already been discussed?
A: I did not order Sommer.
Q: I did not say order. I asked if you didn't request Sommer. Of course, you couldn't give orders to Sommer.
A: By requesting, Mr. Prosecutor, that means that I had a special right to do that. I had received the order from Pohl and I simply passed it on.
Q: Witness, will you just try to answer the question I ask you. Did you request Sommer to sent 79 guards to work location?
A: Yes, I did. I told him Herr Pohl ordered 79 guards to be sent to Erzinger.
Q: I want to show you two other documents, witness, and ask in connection with this same matter, and ask you what part you played in these?
This is NO-3892, which I will mark as prosecution's Exhibit 609; and 3902 which I will mark as 610 for identification.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Witness, you knew what these guards were to do, did you not? Your passing on of the request from Pohl wasn't so much a matter of form that you weren't aware of what the guards were to do?
A: That was known to me, that the guards were to guard the inmates.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Which number is this?
MR. ROBBINS: 3892 is Exhibit 609.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q: I think the record will show that you testified that on yesterday that the specialist workers which you were requesting had nothing to do with inmate labor. I now ask you, first, as to document 3892, dated the 6th of October 1944 if this letter is signed by you?
A: Yesterday I did not testify that that had nothing to do with inmates, but rather I was asked, by defense counsel if it -
Q: Let's not go into that, the record will show what you testified. This is your letter, isn't it?
A: Yes, that is correct.
Q: And it is true that you requested these specialists who would select workers among the inmate laborers, isn't it?
A: I did not request the workers. I told you before, the workers were assigned to the Slate-Oel Research Company. Hauptmann, Freiherr vikruederer...
Q: If you are not going to answer my questions, we will just go on to something else.
I want to show you one last document, and I think these letters will speak for themselves. I want to show you another document concerned with this matter.
DR. FROESCHMANN (Counsel for defendant Mummenthey): Your Honor, I object to the introduction of these documents. The documents can only be submitted in order to last the veracity of the witness, but if the witness did not ask any questions in connection with that introduction, I understand that the introduction of a document -
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, I think the documents will clearly contradict the testimony of the witness, the testimony that he gave yesterday. I don't think it is necessary, unless the Tribunal wants me to ask the same questions that his counsel asked him. I think that would be a waste of time. I think we can identify these documents, and perhaps save time that way.
I intend to ask him a few questions. However, he persists in ignoring the questions.
THE PRESIDENT: If the document seems to contradict the witness and there is some explanation for it, his own counsel can question him afterward for that explanation. BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q: Witness, let's see if we can get an answer on these documents.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Mr. Robbins, I don't think this witness ever admitted signing the document, Exhibit 609. You asked the question. I have never heard his answer, whether he signed it or not.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q: Is that your signature on Document 3892, witness, Exhibit 609?
A: Yes, indeed, Mr. Federal Judge.
Q: Did you receive the other document, NO-3902?
This is addressed to the WVHA Personal Referent.
A: I couldn't tell you that because whenever I received a letter I initialed it.
Q: You can tell that from Exhibit 609, the first letter that I gave you.
A: I have to assume that I received it.
Q: Well, you know very well that you received it. You don't have any doubt in your mind, do you?
A: I couldn't know. How am I to know that. I can assume it -- but not know. I am not going to deny it, in the first place.
Q: Well, witness, look at the second sentence in your letter dated the sixth of October. It says, "Thereupon Standartenfuehrer Maurer informed me...so and so... Doesn't that refer to Maurer's cable which is 3902? Can't you tell that?
A: The telegram? You asked me about the telegram? You asked me if I received the telegram? The telegram, however, refers to a letter of the 30th of August, and now you are asking me if the 23rd of August letter refers to the telegram. That can't be.
Q: No, I am asking you if the 6th of October doesn't refer to the telegram which is NO-3902.
A: The letter dated the 6th of October does not refer to the telegram.
Q: Well, then what way did Maurer inform you of the matter that you state here -
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q: Witness, look on Document 2902, right under the word "Subject, REF". Your letter of 23 August, 1944. "Dr. K." Who does that refer to?
A: That refers to me.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q: Witness, I want to show you another document and ask you if you can identify it. This is NO-3893, which I will mark as Prosecution Exhibit 611.
Do you recall this conference, witness, that is referred to in Exhibit 611?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: You attended the conference?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Do you recall that it was stated that Himmler had made Pohl personally responsible for supplying the Waffen-SS and the Army at hope with oil from oil containing slate?
A: Yes.
Q: Before leaving this complex, witness, I want to see if I understand your testimony. Is your testimony that you did not hear that working conditions were -- as one of the letters describes them -- intolerable and that inmate workers were dying at an alarming rate? You didn't learn that?
A: No, I didn't know that inmates were dying in alarming numbers. Of course, I could assume it because Herr Hoffmann had told me there was an epidemic and usually people die in an epidemic. But I saw to it right away that Dr. Hoffmann could bring the matter in order -
Q: What time-- What date was it that Hoffmann talked to you about this?
A: I couldn't tell you that today.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Who wrote this letter, Mr. Robbins.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q: Can you tell us, witness, who wrote the letter which is NO-389? Is that Jacobi?
A: No, this is not my letter.
Q: Whose signature is at the bottom?
A: Herr Prof. Krauch. He also had taken along a collaborator and Herr Pohl asked me to go and join him in order to make a conference note.
After the conference Prof. Krauch's specialist said he would make the conference note.
Q: Is it also your testimony that oil was never prosuced at this location?
A: I didn't get that.
Q: Was oil ever produced at this location?
A: I don't know that. I was never there. After that I was transferred to the front-line duty. I don't know it.
Q: I think you also testified that you did not hold a managerial position in a company that used inmate labor, is that correct?
A: Yes, that is correct.
Q: You did not hold any position on the board of directors or the board of supervisors, nor were you a prokurist.
A: In all the share companies, in Aktiengesellschaften, I was a member of the supervisory board, but the supervisory boards never met. Herr Pohl simply made me a member of the supervisory so that I could see to it that all regulations under commercial law were complied with. We also had the commercial law of 1938 which was based on the leader principle according to which the president that is the chairman...
Q: I didn't ask you for all that. Tell us then what companies -- in what companies you were on the board of supervisors.
A: Bohemia, Mattoni, Wolfram's Preserves Factory, and Gelleschau.
Q: And in what companies were you on the board of directors?
A: I was not a member of any of the boards of directors.
Q: And in what companies did you hold the position of prokurist?
A: The DWB; I was a business manager of the Gemeinnuetzige, and with the House & Real Estate Company. I can't think of any more.
THE PRESIDENT: Time for the recess, Mr. Robbins.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken)
Court No. II, Case No. IV.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
CROSS EXAMINATION (continued) BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, I think I did not get an answer to my question about Schieferoel. It is true, is it not, that you were one of the founders of this company?
JUDGE PHILLIPS: What was that, Mr. Robbins, I didn't have my ear phones on.
MR. ROBBINS: Slate Oil.
You were one of the founders?
A Pohl ordered me when Loerner was not present to appoint myself the founder with five thousand Reichsmarks. Pohl told me that once the company had been entered on the Commercial Registry, I could turn over the Reichsmarks to him.
Q Do you remember when that was, was that on 2 May 1944 that you became the founder?
A The date becomes evident from the document of the Notary. I believe this document also states that a short time later I turned over the money again. There is still another document there.
Q Do you recall how long you held -- excuse me. You were also business manager of this firm, were you not the Geschaeftsfuehrer?
A I cannot recall that at all. Business manager? I don't think so. In my opinion the business manager was a SS-Gruppenfuehrer and later on he had a fatal accident with his car.
Q Let me show you page 7 of this Registration certificate and ask you if you can tell me who the business managers of this firm were?
A Yes, that is stated here. The business manager was the businessman Heinz Schwarz. He was living in Berlin-Lichterflede West and Hans Jacobi, also a businessman, was the procurist. The businessman Heinz Schwarz was relieved of this position later on and SS-Gruppenfuehrer was put into his place. This was done because the company was removed from Office W I.
Q And that same document, on page 7, that yes are just looking at, states that you and Pohl made the appointment of business manager, Court No. II, Case No. 4.does it not?
A Well, that was necessary according to the Commercial Code.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Witness, if you will just answer the question and then if you have an explanation of it you are entitled to make it. But, you explain a question before you ever answer it and we don't know whether you are intending to say Yes or No to the question. If you will answer the question first and then make what explanation you desire to make of it, then we will have some idea of what your testimony means. BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Your answer to my question then is Yes, is that right - you and Pohl made the appointment?
A Yes.
Q Can you see from the document how long you held an official position in this company, during what periods of time?
A From the 5th of May 1944.
Q Until when?
A That is not shown by the document.
Q You can see that at least a month later you were still holding your position, can you not? Again referring to page 7?
A Yes.
Q You can't remember how much beyond that you held the position?
A No.
Q Now just one last question on that. I still don't understand exactly the position that you held. You state that you were founder. You contributed the capital, did you also held a position in the firm, were you a member of any of the Boards?
A I don't know anything about it. I don't think so.
Q Can't you remember if you were or were not?
A I certainly would have to remember it. I don't know it. I don't think so.
Q One of the letters that you wrote on this matter was addressed to Captain von Kruedener. He was on Milch's staff, was he not?
A He was on the Staff of the Commissioner von Geillenberg.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Whether on the staff of Milch, I don't know.
Q You don't know that he was Milch's Ordnance Officer.
A I don't know that, No.
Q You didn't know that Milch had any interest in this matter the production of oil?
A I think that the man in charge of the Luftwaffe certainly would be interested in that in Germany. However, at the moment I can't recall having heard anything about this matter in the line of duty.
Q Passing on to another matter, witness, I want to show you another document and ask you to identify it. This is NO 3909. It will be Prosecution Exhibit 612. Have you seen this letter before?
A I can't tell you that.
Q Well, tell me who is the letter signed by. Dr. Bobermin?
A Yes.
Q And is the information contained in the letter correct?
A Yes.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Is it your testimony, witness, that....
First, let me ask you this. During what period of time were you a member of the Aufsichts Rat of the Golleschauer Company?
A It is stated here, from the 29th of October, 1942, onwards.
Q And how long did you hold this position?
A I think that I maintained this position up until the end -until the time I went to combat.
Q And did Georg Loerner retain his position until the end?
A I think so, yes.
Q And did Kammler?
A Yes.
Q And is the same true for Bobermin?
A Yes, he was a member of the Vorstand, the Board of Directors, until the end. However, he only carried out this activity until April, 1944.
THE PRESIDENT: Could the witness explain what Aufsichts rat meant?
MR. ROBBINS: That is... I think the defendant Hohbert did. That's the Board of Supervisors.
THE PRESIDENT: Distinguishable from the Board of Directors?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, Your Honor.
Is that correct, witness? The Aufsichtsrat is the Board of Supervisors.
Perhaps we had better ask the interpreters.
INTERPRETER: The Aufsichtsrat is the Board of Supervisors.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Now, witness, you have told us that you did not hold an official position.
A (Interrupting) I didn't hear the translation just now.
Q You have told us that you did not hold an official position in any industry that employed concentration camp inmates. Now, you know, don't you, that the Golleschauer Portland Cement Company employed inmates?
A I stated that I didn't exercise the activity of a business Court No. II, Case No. 4.manager or Prokurist in enterprises which employed concentration camp inmates.
With regard to the position in the Aufsichtsrat - the Board of Supervisors - I will have to refer later on to that to clarify the matter to the Tribunal.
Q I think your testimony - the transcript will show what my notes show that you stated very clearly that you held no position in an industry that used concentration camp inmates. Now, I ask you - you know quite well, don't you, that this company employed concentration camp inmates?
A. Yes, I knew that.
Q And during what period of time did they employ inmates?
A I can't give you the exact date because I am not so precisely informed about the conditions.
Q Witness, did you......
THE PRESIDENT (Interrupting): Mr. Robbins, I dread to open this up. Is there any way to find out what a syndikus is now without getting in over our heads?
MR. ROBBINS: The witness said that sometimes he had a managerial capacity and sometimes he did not.
THE PRESIDENT: He said it didn't have any relationship to commercial law. He said a man about to practice law could call himself a syndikus. Up to now, it has no meaning for us at all, yet he was one in this company. Maybe we could find out what he did in this company. That might define it.
MR. ROBBINS: Witness, you were a member of the Aufsichtsrat and did you also hold the position of syndikus in the Golleschauer firm or was that a title that attached to you wherever you went? He was also a syndikus in the Slate Oil Company, I notice.
THE PRESIDENT: It's a title like doctor or professor, but it went with you wherever you went?
WITNESS: The title always went along with me, Your Honor. It is a title as if one would say somebody is a merchant or a businessman. You can say: "Merchant or Business Man Max Mueller" and likewise you can Court No. II, Case No. 4.say:
"The Syndikus, Dr. Volk."
THE PRESIDENT: That's what I said. It's like doctor or professor or merchant.
WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor, that's correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as a syndikus, what did you do in the Golleschauer Portland Cement Company?
WITNESS: Your Honor, I didn't do anything at all.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Did you get paid for doing this nothing job?
WITNESS: No, Your Honor. Your Honor, for positions in the Aussichtsrat, with which I am charged by the Prosecution, I did not receive a penny. I was only taken into the Board of Supervisors in case that a session might take place some time so I could take down the record. That was my entire activity. In redirect, I will explain that to you. In the German Reich government a cabinet never actually met. Hitler gave the orders. In the position of Board of Supervisors, there never were any meetings of the Aufsichtsrat---I think only on one occasion with the Golleschauer. However, the work was never discussed at all during this session and the business manager carried out this work with Pohl. This session of the Aufsichtsrat took place on one occasion because Bruno Haettenschwiller, a Swiss citizen, was in the Aufsichtsrat and we did not want to show to the foreign countries just how the Fuehrer principle applied in our enterprises. That was why this session was called in. Our other work was not discussed there at all.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Dr. Seidl, could you tell us what a syndikus is?
DR. SEIDL: I believe I can give a short explanation of that title, Your Honor.
The expression "syndikus" in German law is used in various ways. Normally, this means a legal consultant. For example, labor unions or enterprises, organizations, have a syndikus. However, we cannot say that the word syndikus represents a certain concept which is uniform in all its aspects. Normally, a syndikus is a man who gives legal advise and is not in a position to make his own decisions independently.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Thank you.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Your function then, as a syndikus, witness, is different from your function as a member of the Aufsichtsrat? They're different concepts and different functions, are they not?
A Yes, that may be true.
Q Witness, did you at any time visit the concentration camp at Dachau?
A I was not at the concentration camp Dachau. I was only in the area where the barracks for the guards stood in the concentration camp. That is to say, where the troops were quartered. From there, on one occasion, I saw the vegetable garden. However, this was not part of the concentration camp.
Q And when was that?
A I can't tell you that.
Q 1944?
A I don't think so. I think it was before that. I can't give you the year at all any more. I still don't know up to date where the protective custody camp was. I never saw it. I never even saw it from a distance.
Q But you were in the outer area of the concentration camp?
A Yes, the co-defendants told me that it was a fifteen minutes' walk from the area I visited, where the troops were billeted. However, I don't know that.
Q Did you see inmates working when you were there?
A No, I didn't see that.
Q Did you see any inmates at all?
A In the troops building I saw some inmates. However, these inmates were not from the concentration camp but they were SS prisoners. They were people who had been confined in jail and they had to work there.
Q Did you visit the concentration camp at Sachsenhausen?
A No.
Q Were you in the outer area of the camp?
A I passed by there in a car on three or four occasions.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Did you see any concentration camp inmates?
A The inmates were walking in the street. I saw them there when I passed by.
Q When was the last time that you saw inmates there? What was the latest date?
A It might have been in 1943 or 1944.
Q Were you ever in the outer area of the concentration camp of Buchenwald?
A I was not at Buchenwald, no.
Q Were you ever at Flossenbuerg other than the time you told us about?
A No.
Q Were you at Ravensbrueck?
A I wasn't there either. I only passed by Ravensbrueck, by twenty minutes when I visited Pohl's wife, in Komturei.
Q Well, were you in the outer area of the concentration camp?
A I don't even know where the concentration camp Ravensbrueck was located. I can't tell you that. I was on a trip to Komturei to see Pohl's wife, in a car. I was told that this was near Ravensbrueck.
Q Well, were you in the outer area of any other concentration camp?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A When I was in Stutthof in 1941, however, when I was there, no inmates were in the camp. I didn't enter the protective custody camp, either, because there were so many camps that I had to inspect. I arrived very late, and the persons that attended the meeting were about to go away with Dr. Kammler. I had to go in my car after my arrival there. I was only there in the school or in the Kommandantur building.
Q Do you know when the camp was placed under Pohl's supervision?
A I assume that this was in 1942; however, I can't give you the exact date. It was in April or May 1942. However, I may be mistaken here, I don't want to make a definite statement.
A I assume that; however, I don't know it for certain.
Q At any time while you were working for the WVHA, did you hear about invalid transports?
A No.
Q You didn't hear anything about the extermination of the Jews?
A No.
Q You didn't hear about gassings at Auschwitz?
A No.
Q And you didn't hear about the activities of the Einsatzgruppen?
A I didn't hear anything about that either.
Q Did you ever hear of the Einsatzgruppen?
A No.
Q You didn't know that such a thing existed?
A No.
Q You didn't -
A It must have been in the East.
Q You didn't know about the existence of a crematorium?
A Yes, I knew that. It came to my knowledge that a crematorium existed at Dachau. I also knew that there was a crematorium at Auswitz, I heard that. However, I didn't think about that matter at all. I thought that in such a big camp people would be dying and these people had to be buried in some way.