Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q You didn't hear that the death rate in concentration camps was particularly high?
A No.
Q And were those the only two crematoria that you heard about?
A Yes. I believe that I only heard about the crematorium at Auschwitz. I believe that I can recall that I only heard about the crematorium at Dachau after I came here; however, I know that I heard about Auschwitz.
Q You didn't hear about the existence of gas chambers?
A No.
Q And you didn't hear at any time that any one in the concentration camp was mistreated in anyway?
A Yes, I did hear something about that.
Q What did you hear?
A In July 1944 I was in Switzerland. I went there in order to conclude a contract with a Jewish emigrant by the name of Helene Kaufmann and in order to pay her 50,000 Swiss francs. While I was travelling from Bern to Zurich, I read a newspaper. After I had finished reading the paper, I exchanged the paper with a Swiss friend who accompanied me on this journey. Suddenly he said to me, "Take a look at this article here." And here on the inside of the paper the names of eight concentration camps were listed, and here the maltreatment of inmates by the commanders and guards were listed, and the various maltreatments were specified in that article. They said that this had taken place in the Protective Custody Camps. I got very excited about the matter, and I told him I'd like to take the newspaper along with me to Germany; however I could not take this newspaper along with me to Germany because on the frontier we had to turn in all newspapers. I therefore made a very small note of the matter, and I wrote down the names of the concentration camps which were mentioned in the article. I hid this piece of paper in my shoe so that it was not discovered when I crossed the border. After I had completed my journey, I reported to Pohl and I told him that I had concluded the purchasing contract, and that I had given the order Court No. II, Case No. 4.of transferring the sum of money to the Jewess.
Here we were dealing with an estate in Styria. After I had completed my report, I said to Pohl that there was something else that I wanted to bring to his knowledge. I told him that I had read an article in the paper, according to which, maltreatment on a large scale was taking place in the concentration camps. I assumed that the information contained in the article was correct because four concentration camp commanders had been mentioned by name, and I knew these people by name. Pohl asked me just what was in the article, and who the commanders were, and then I named the concentration camps to him. I came to the third concentration camp -- this was in 1944, in July, I want to add this by way of explanation -- and on the third place there was listed SS-Oberfuehrer Loritz, the commander of Sachsenhausen let his men stand for three hours during winter time, and he let them freeze. Furthermore, he had built a house for himself on the Wolfgangsee, and that he had taken carloads of foodstuff gotten on the black-market in Sachsenhausen. Then I read the article to him. Pohl interrupted me suddenly and then he told me: "Loritz has already been dismissed by me in the year 1942. These news reports are enemy propaganda, and all the information here is incorrect and it consists of lies." And then he went on and added: "Volk, I am telling you now, if you ever tell anybody about what you have read in that paper, or if you pass the information on to anybody, then this might cost you your head. I am just warning you now." By way of explanation, however, I want to add that Pohl did not want to have me shot, but that he was warning me from the Gestapo. That is the only knowledge which I obtained about the excesses in the concentration camp from my reading the article. I don't know anything else about it.
Q When did your conversation with Pohl take place?
A This discussion -- I will be able to tell you the exact date by means of a document. I shall give you the exact date in a minute. I can't find the spot at the moment -- however, I will be able to give you the exact date tomorrow. It was after the 11th of July. It may have been between the 12th and the 16th or 17th of July 1944.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q And did you talk to anyone else except Pohl about this matter?
A I do not think so. I can't recall anything, but I think I discussed it with my wife. I don't know whether the information was true or not; however, since Pohl had so firmly warned me, I was impressed by the matter to such an extent that I believed him.
Q I didn't ask you that. And you tell us that is the only thing that you have heard at any time about mistreatment of concentration camp inmates?
A Yes, as far as I can recall.
Q You didn't know that prisoners of war were in concentration camps?
A I never considered that possible. I will be able to tell you that in direct examination.
Q You didn't know that prisoners of war were working in the SSIndustries?
A I didn't know that.
Q You didn't know that they were working in the Construction Works of Amtsgruppe C?
A I didn't know that.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, witness, your direct examination is over, you better answer the questions now. You were asked of knowing about prisoners of war in concentration camps, and you said, "I will say more about that on direct examination."
A Your Honor, of course, I was referring to the fact that I didn't know about that until 1945 before the collapse. I know it today.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I am referring to the fact that you are holding back and not answering questions, believing that you are going to be examined again by your own attorney. Now, you better answer the questions to Mr. Robbins.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, -
DR. FROESCHMANN: Your Honor, I didn't understand the witness to say that he wants to keep back any information now, but apparently he was Court No. II, Case No. 4.only trying to express the fact that what he is saying here now and what needs any addition by way of explanation, he will mention in his redirect examination.
He does it for the reason because the prosecutor doesn't let him finish the sentence. There are many questions which the witness cannot answer with yes or no because a completely false picture will result. The witness is unable to answer that with yes or no.
For example, the case of Loritz, the witness, wanted to explain what I consider for very important reasons why he was of the conviction that what Pohl told him about the atrocities was true. That is very important for the veracity of the witness, and the Prosecutor here didn't let him finish his sentence. That is why the witness was trying to express that he would have to complete this information in his redirect examination.
Of course, I didn't understand the witness to mean that he wanted to keep back any information here. After all, the witness wants to tell everything he knows.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, now is the time to tell it.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness, did I cut you off on the matter of Loritz? Didn't you tell us that Pohl told you that Loritz had been removed two years previously? Was there something else about Loritz you wanted to say?
A. Yes, I wanted to say that I believe that what Pohl had told me was correct. With regard to the prisoners of war I also wanted to add something -
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, now is the time to do it.
WITNESS: It had come to my knowledge that in the year 1941 Himmler was trying to bring Russian prisoners of war into concentration camps. I discussed the matter with Dr. Kammler when I was taking a trip to Stutthof, and I told Dr. Kammler that this was completely impossible that prisoners of war should be put into a concentration camp. After all, this was a violation of international law. Then, Dr. Kammler told me the Russians did not belong to the International Red Cross, and I couldn't answer at all to this argument. Afterwards I heard from somebody that the Supreme command of the Army had refused to transfer prisoners of war, including Russian prisoners of war, to the concentration camps. Consequently I was firmly convinced that no prisoners of war were in concentration camps.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness, I would like to show you a document. That may refresh your recollection. Will you look at Document Book No. 3, and turn to NO-1292. It is on page 51 of the German; it is Exhibit 56; it is on page 46 of the English. This is a report of Kammler's about the utilization of around 45,000 prisoners of war and inmates in construction work in the concentration camp. You received this document, didn't you?
A. I don't have the document before me. Could you have it handed to me? (Document handed to witness) Please excuse me for a minute. I am just reading this document.
Q. Do you see at the bottom that it is reported to Amtsgruppe W?
A. An information copy went to Amtsgruppe W. It was not countersigned by me. However, I can recall this document. It passed through Office Group W, and of this document three documents actually went to Office Group W; One went to the Inspector of the concentration camps SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks at Oranienburg, near Berlin for Amtsgruppe D, and it was signed by Kammler; one went to the General Plenipotentiary for the Utilization of Labor -- the Conscription of Labor, Sauckel; and a third one went to the Chief of the Supreme Command of the Army-that was the chief for the prisoner of war service.
Q. And another copy went to Amtsgruppe W?
A. No. All three copies were inclosed in this letter, and all the copies had the same contents.
Q. Well, don't you remember that you signed this document?
A. I probably counter-signed this document so that it went to Office Group W. I probably counter-signed all three documents. However, from this I could not say that prisoners of war were located in concentration camps.
Q. Just so there will be no doubt about it, will you look at the photostat and see if that isn't your signature on the document?
A. Yes.
Q. You read the document, didn't you?
A. Yes, I just glanced over the document, and then I wrote on it "Circulation". The last six pages about the construction matters, that didn't interest me at all.
Q. Well, witness, you just told me a few moments ago that you didn't know that PW's were used in construction work under Amtsgruppe C. That testimony was wrong, wasn't it?
A. I beg your pardon?
Q. That testimony was incorrect, wasn't it?
A. No, I really didn't know it.
Q. You can't tell from this document that prisoners of war were being used in construction work, that about 45,000 are being used in Ravensbrueck, Auschwitz, Oranienburg, Natzweiler, Buchenwald, Gusen, Mauthausen, Litzmannstadt?
Q. You can't see that from this document?
A. No, one cannot see that from the document at all. I have to explain the matter to you, if you let me complete my explanation the Tribunal will be able to confirm the truth of my statements.
Q. Well, witness, answer my question first. You saw the list that was attached to the letter, didn't you, that is referred to in this letter?
A. I may have glanced over it, and then on the second page I put down "Circulation" or "Circulate".
Q. And you see that in the third column it is headed "Request for Prisoners, PWs and Jews" -- the word is Haeftlinge in the original German, which means inmates. And you see that the subject is headed "Employment of Haeftlinge, Prisoners of War, Jews, and so forth." You saw that, didn't you?
A. Yes, however, there were three copies there, and they all had the same content; they were addressed to the Chief of the Supreme Command of the Army, the Prisoner of War Service. Another copy was addressed to Sauckel, and another one was addressed to Gluecks.
Since it says here "Inmates, Prisoners of War, and Jews, and so forth" and here it says "Requests for Inmates, Jews and Prisoners of War." Then when there were three letters on hand I had to think that the inmates were to come from Gluecks, that the prisoners of war would come from the Chief of the Supreme Command of the Army, from the P.W. System, and that the Jews would be furnished by Sauckel.
Q. Well, you told me just a moment ago though that you didn't know that prisoners of war were being used in construction projects. Now that testimony is incorrect, isn't it?
It is perfectly clear from this document that prisoners of war were being used in these construction projects.
A. I didn't look at the list. After all, I don't assume-
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Wait a minute. Did you read the first line on this document when it came to you hand? Under the word "Subject", the very top line of the document? Did you read that?
A. I can't tell you that, Your Honor.
Q. What?
A. I can't tell you that, Your Honor.
Q. What part of it did you look at before you circulated it?
A. I looked at the first two pages, and on the second page I wrote down "To be circulated."
Q. Then you looked at the first page, did you?
A. Yes, I looked at the first page.
Q. The first page?
A. Yes the first page.
Q. Well, what is the first thing you read when you looked at the first page? Read it.
A. There I read -
Q. No, read it now; the first thing that you would see on the first page.
What did you see?
A. Allocation of Inmates, Prisoners of War, Jews, and so forth."
Q. Go ahead. Next line.
A. "Subject: Establishment of a List -
Q. I don't get that. Read that line over again.
A. "Allocation of Inmates, Prisoners of War, Jews, and so forth, for the carrying out of the construction program of the SS-WVHA, Office Group C, 1942, in the third year of the war economy."
Q. Now, if you didn't read another word, if you stopped right there, you knew that prisoners of war were being used in the WVHA construction program, didn't you?
A. Yes, that they were used for construction program. However, I didn't know that they were in the concentration camp as inmates. I thought that a prisoner of war camp would be established in the district and then the inmates from the prisoner of war would have been taken from the prisoner of war camp and they would have worked on a construction program.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. So that you now want to change your testimony that you gave me just a moment ago, that you did not know that PW's were used in Amtsgruppe C8s construction program. You wish to change that, don't you?
THE WITNESS: I understood you to say that they were inmates in camps.
MR. ROBBINS: There wasn't any misunderstanding and I think the record will show that clearly.
DR. GAWLIK (Attorney for Defendant Volk): Your Honor, I want to object. As far as I and my colleagues have understood the question by the prosecution, this question was never asked, whether prisoners of war were employed by the WVHA. The whole discussion is whether prisoners of war were located in concentration camps. That, after all, will become evident from the transcript.
MR. ROBBINS: I can assure counsel I was very careful to ask that question and we will see in the transcript how it comes out.
Q. (By Mr. Robbins) I suppose, Witness, that you didn't look under Item 35 of the list that these prisoners of war, inmates, and Jews were building crematoria at Weimar Buchenwald. You didn't see that?
A. I stated that I wrote down the word, "circulate" on the second page of the document. After all, as a legal expert, I was not interested in the list at all.
Q. You also said you looked through the list, isn't that true?
A. No.
Q. You didn't look at the list at all?
A. I argued with reference to the list. I didn't even look at the list. I didn't have enough time to do that.
Q. You didn't see that a crematorium was also being constructed in the Gusen concentration camp.
A. No, I didn't see that either.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until tomorrow at 9:30.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 30 July 1947, at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of Military Tribunal II, Case IV, in the matter of the United States of America, against Oswald Pohl, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 30 July 1947, 0930-1630. Justice Toms, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America, and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
CROSS EXAMINATION (continued) DR. VOLK - resumed BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness, is it your testimony that you did not hear at any time of property being confiscated without remuneration to the owners, which property was used by the SS or the SS industries?
A. This question probably applies to the WVHA only.
Q. First let me ask you about the SS generally, and then separately about the WVHA.
A. I know the RSHA confiscated property and that the owners were disappropriated.
Q. When was that and what kind of property was so confiscated?
A. I don't know individual cases but I believe it must have been after 1938. That was after the legislature had been issued about the Jews.
Q. And was this Jewish property?
A. I assume so. However, I am not informed about the individual cases because I have never worked at the RSHA.
Q. Did you hear about confiscations by the SS without remuneration in occupied territories?
A. I never worked in the occupied territories. I never heard anything about it.
Q. Your answer is that you did not hear anything about it, is that right?
A. I only know that the State authorities confiscated Jewish property. For example, in the Protectorate, and then the owners were disappropriated and this property was transferred to the Reich. Whether the Jews received any compensation I don't know.
Q. Did you ever think about it at all?
A. Yes, I did think about the matter.
Q. And you came to the conclusion that Jews in the occupied territories were compensated for the confiscated property. Is that right?
A. I couldn't get that idea at all because I didn't have any knowledge about the facts, I only knew the legal side.
Q. Well, you said you thought about it. "What conclusion did you come to as to whether the Jews were compensated or not?
A. I did not think about the law De Lege Lata, but I thought about De Lege Ferenda.
Q. You told us about all of the instances of confiscation that you heard about by the SS?
A. Yes, about everything that I heard.
Q. Now, going to the second part of my question. The property that was so confiscated and utilized in some way by the WVHA or SS industries, what did you hear about that?
A. The property which had been owned by Jews and which was used by the WVHA was confiscated on behalf of the Reich. Consequently, it became the property of the Reich. If the WVHA wanted to purchase such property it had to pay the legal purchase price to the German Reich. A person to evaluate the property was appointed by the De Lege Ferenda the Minister of Finance and he had to fix the price. Then the enterprise of the WVHA had to pay that price.
Q. Witness, will you turn to the document in Document Book II that we were discussing last night, NO 1293, on page 51 of the German and 46 of the English. It is Document NO-1293, Exhibit 56.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Mr. Robbins, may I make inquiry here with regard to the examination you have just concluded as to whether the witness knew if the owners of the confiscated Jewish properties were compensated for their losses. I don't know whether that came out clearly or not, just what the witness did know about that.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
MR. ROBBINS: Will you answer that question, witness?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I did not know just how in individual cases the Jews were compensated.
BY JUDGE MUSMANNO:
Q Well, first, let's begin with were they compensated so far as you knew?
AAccording to the legislation of the National Socialist Reich, they had to receive a compensation.
Q What legislation was that?
A That was the decree about the utilization of Jewish property, and this decree was issued in 1938. According to this decree the Jews had to be given a certain compensation, and the approval for this was given by the Chief Finance President. He had to see to it that these properties were purchased for a fair price. If this was a compulsory sale which the Reich Ministry of Finance wanted, let's assume that the Jew in question was told, "You have to sell your property," and he sold that property on his own initiative through a purchasing contract, and the purchasing price was lower than it would have been if a normal evaluation of the property had taken place, then the Chief Finance President fixed a certain Aryanization compensation which the purchaser had to pay to the German Reich.
Q This was in 1938. Was that law ever appealed or amended so far as you know?
A No, it was never changed.
Q All right. Do you know whether it was ever put into practical effect?
A Yes, I know that.
Q Don't you know, as a matter of fact, that it was more observed in the breach, that is to say that more often the owners were not paid? Doesn't the evidence seem to suggest that?
A I did not know that, no. I never heard anything about it.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, do you have the document before you, Exhibit 56?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A Document Book III, on what page?
Q On Page 51 of the German.
A Yes, I have found it now. Oh, yes, we were discussing that document yesterday.
Q Now you see the paragraph on Page 2 of the original? That deals with Operation Heydrich, and this document which you signed states that through the Operation Heydrich a certain number of German construction firms and skilled workers have already been secured for construction projects in the eastern territory for the establishment of supply depots. Suppose you tell us what you thought Operation Heydrich was?
A I did not sign this document. I would like to clarify that matter right now.
Q Your name isn't on the document?
A The document was assigned to me on the stamp of arrival, and then it was addressed to Dr. Kammler. Only afterwards was it turned over to Office Group W for information.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Mr. Robbins, you are just wasting time. He testified yesterday that the document came to him and he initialed it for distribution.
MR. ROBBINS: He wrote his full name on the document as a matter of fact.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: He said he initialed it. That is what his testimony was.
Q (By Mr. Robbins) Now, tell us, Witness, what you thought Operation Heydrich was and how these German construction firms were secured through Operation Heydrich?
A I heard in the main office that the Enterprise Heydrich was an enterprise in order to construct SS and police bases within the Russian territory. This was done because of the size of the occupied territory in Russia. These police and SS bases were to be established. For this reason this enterprise was called Operation Heydrich. That is what I heard in the WVHA. The enterprise as such and the operation was carried out by Office Group C.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us get the right name for this operation. It is Heinrich, not Heydrich.
THE WITNESS: No, the name of the operation is Heinrich, H-e-i-n-r-i-c-h.
Q (By Mr. Robbins) Is that all you can tell us about this operation?
A Yes. Since Office Group C could not carry out this operation with its limited personnel, private construction enterprises were conscripted in order to work in this operation. That is what I know in general about the matter.
Q And who was in charge of this operation?
AAccording to what I heard there was a big dispute between Ex-SS-Gruppenfuehrer Globocnik and SS-Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Kammler. Globocnik wanted to carry out this operation, and Kammler, on the other hand, opposed it, because he was the chief of all the construction work. As far as I can recall an agreement was reached as a result of an intervention by Pohl, and that is how this question was solved. I don't know this for certain, but I think Dr. Kammler was put in charge of carrying out the operation, and I think that Globocnik was charged with the planning. However, I cannot say that for certain. I can only tell you what I learned from hearsay.
Q Do you know that these construction firms were confiscated?
A No. It states here they were secured, and I believe that it would be a false - that we have a false translation in the English document book. The expression to secure something is an expression which is used in German labor law. By securing something we understand that workers are assigned to a certain construction program, or they are furnished to a certain task so that they cannot be used for a different task by another employer.
Q Now, you told us that there were three of these letters, one sent to Gluecks; one to Sauckel, and one to the Chief of the Supreme Command of the Army. Did Kammler sign all three of these letters?
A Yes.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q And you saw all three of them?
A I only looked at the first two pages, and I compared them. I compared the beginning and the end, and then I asked myself, "Why are there three documents?" That is what drew my attention to it.
Q And you made sure that the three letters were identical, is that your testimony?
A The first pages, yes, I looked at them. I looked at the first two pages, and after all this task could not use up much of my time, and I only put on the second page, "Circulation". That was also a matter which I had to pass so it would clear my desk.
Q And you don't know whether these other two so-called letters or alleged letters, whether the list on them was the same as the list on the letter that is in the document book?
A I didn't even look at that list. After all, Office Group W wasn't interested in that list at all, and of course I was not concerned with it either.
Q I just want to ask you one or two more questions about this and go on to another matter. As I understand your testimony, you thought that these four categories, inmates, prisoners of war, Jews and E.T.C., were mutually exclusive categories, is that right, that they did not overlap in any way?
A No, I assumed that Kammler wanted inmates from Gluecks; that he wanted prisoners of war from the Commander in Chief of the Amy, Chief of the P.W. Service; and I thought that he wanted to have the Jews from Sauckel.
Q You didn't think that there were any Jews in the concentration camps, is that right?
A Yes, I knew that some Jews were located in concentration camps.
Q And you knew that Kammler was writing to Gluecks as the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps to be furnished with Jews, didn't you?
A Mr. Prosecutor, if Kammler wanted to procure workers from the concentration camps, then he wouldn't list all these categories. Then Court No. II, Case No. 4.he would only have written down, "I want a certain number of inmates," but he would not specify these other different categories.
After all the term "inmates" applied to all of them.
Q It also applied to prisoners of war, too, didn't it?
A Yes. I only heard in 1945 when I heard about the Nurnberg trial over the radio, that is, when I heard that prisoners of war were also in the concentration camps.
Q Well, witness, you didn't think that Sauckel was recruiting only Jews, did you?
A I didn't think so, no.
Q Now, there are a few questions about concentration camp Stutthof that I want to clear up. Was the property in or near Stutthof, was any property acquired by the DWB?
A The DWB? You are referring to the concern now, aren't you, or are you referring to the G.m.b.H.? You must differentiate between the two.
Q Well, was any such property acquired by either?
A You must differentiate between the DWB concern and the DWB, G.m.b.H.
Q We are not interested in that. Answer my question.
A The DWB concern, that is to say the affiliated companies, and in particular the German Experimental Station for Food, Office W-V, and the DEST Office-I had leased two properties in the vicinity of Stutthof, they had leased them from the German Reich.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q What industry was that, the DEST?
A Yes. The DEST had a brick plant there which it had leased near Stutthof, that was the Brick Works at Stutthof. The German experimental station for food and nutrition operated or leased an estate there; it was called Werderhof.
Q And the purchase of the Brick Works -- you say they were leased. Were they ever -- was a purchase of the Brick Works carried out by Dr. Hoffmann?
A No, I don't know that about Dr. Hoffmann. Dr. Hoffman only was with me in the DWB later on. Before that, for a short period of time, he had been a legal expert with the DEST.
Q Was the title to any other property in or near Stutthof changed in ownership, was the title passed?
A What property are you referring to? Are you referring to the estate Werderhof and the brick plant at Werderhof?
Q Well, there are several different plots of property that are involved here, and I want you to tell me about all of them.
A Well, then I will have to enumerate all of them to you.
Q Go ahead.
A First, we had the school building, then we had the Brick Works at Stutthof.
Q By whom was the school building owned and by whom was it acquired?
A The school building belonged to the Reich Forestry Administration. The SS sector established a school on the property which belonged to the Reich Forestry Administration. Therefore, the school had become the property of the Reich Forestry Administration because according to our law -
Q You have given me the answer. Who purchased this property?
A This property was never actually purchased. A contract was never completed. This is shown by Document Book 14 -
Q You don't have to point out the document, just give me the answers. And what was the second property that you were about to refer to?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A That was the Brick Works at Stutthof.
Q You just answered that. Will you go on to the next plot of property?
A That was the Estate Werderhof.
Q And what transactions were carried out in connection with it?
A The estate of Werderhof was purchased by Office III-A/2 by the German Reich, and it was leased to the German Experimental Station for Food and Nutrition.
Q And were there any other plots of property that changed hands at this time?
A In the vicinity of Stutthof, about 60 kilometers away, there was a Brick Works which was called Hoppenbuehl. By order of Himmler this Brick Works had to be purchased by the DEST from a German woman whose son had been killed during the war and was unable to operate this plant by herself.
Q And is that all the property that was changed?
A Yes, that was all as far as I can remember.
Q Well, what SS-Koncern had plants or industries in Stutthof concentration camp, in and near Stutthof concentration camp?
AAs far as I can recall that was the DAW, GmbH, Office W-Iv, and Office W-I. I can't recall any other ones at the moment.
Q What industries under W-I were located in Stutthof?
A Well, we had the brick works at Stutthof.
Q That was under the DEST?
A Yes, that was the DEST.
Q And what other industries?
A I don't think there were any other ones under the DEST as far as I am informed.
Q Were there any other ones under W-I?
A I don't know of any others.
Q And were inmates used in these SS-Koncerns that you have mentioned as being located in Stutthof?
A Concentration camp inmates? I didn't see them, but I must assume Court No. II, Case No. 4.that.