Q I want to show you several documents on the Stutthof transaction, and ask you to identify them. The first one is Document NO4087, which I will mark as Prosecution Exhibit 613.
Is this document signed by you, witness?
A Will you please let me take a look at the document?
Q Have you read it yet?
A No, I haven't finished yet.
Q Have you finished page 2 yet, witness?
A Yes.
Q Will you look at the last paragraph on page 2? "The Brick Works at the concentration camp ..." The Reference is to the Werderhoff. Are these the Brick Works that were later operated by the DEST?
A I didn't quite understand the translation.
Q You see in the translation on page 2 of the original, a reference is made to the Brick Works at Werderhof. My question is: Are these the Brick Works that were subsequently operated by the DEST?
A Yes.
Q And do you see the preceding paragraph, your suggestion that the DWB get from the Forestry Administration the ground which is necessary for building the concentration camp. Was this proposal carried out?
A No.
Q The DWB did purchase property, did it not?
A No.
Q No property at all was purchased by the DWB and later sold to the Reich?
A No.
Q Is this your signature on the letter, witness?
A Yes.
Q Is it your testimony, witness, that -- well, I think the transcript will show your previous testimony with regard to that matter. I want to show you the next document, NO-4090, which I will mark as Prosecution Exhibit 614.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A Yes.
Q Do you remember participating in this conference?
A Yes.
Q And do you know who prepared this memorandum?
A I did.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q And in the second paragraph a reference is made to the concentration camp which was to afford accommodation for 25,000 inmates. Do you know whether this plan was carried out?
A I did not carry out that plan. After all, I was consulted there...
Q Witness, just answer my question. Was this plan carried out for 25,000 inmates being located in Stutthof? You have seen that from the documents. I am asking you now if you knew it at the time?
A I don't know whether this plan was carried out. That is to say, the purchase.
Q Well, did you know that the concentration camp was erected?
A Yes.
Q And you know that inmates were incarcerated there?
A Yes.
Q So your testimony is that you just didn't know how many inmates were there?
A Yes.
Q Now, at the top of page 2 of the original the draft of a purchase contract was prepared by Dr. Hohberg, it is stated. Did you prepare such a purchase contract?
A The purchase contract was formulated by the Provincial Forest Supervisor. I just made several changes in the contract. However, this contract was never approved.
Q That is all you had to do with this particular contract, is that right?
A Yes-- No, no, you have another document.
Q Yes, I have some more-
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q I see on the bottom of the second page of the original of this Document 4090, that the handwritten note is there by Dr. Hohberg. What did Dr. Hohberg have to do with this transaction?
A Since I was in charge of the legal department of Staff W, I sent this file note to Dr. Hohberg for acknowledgment.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Sent it to him for acknowledgment as what, chief of Staff W?
A Yes.
Q All right.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q You wanted to make an additional statement?
A With regard to the question of His Honor? No, I want to say something with regard to your question. I only wanted to tell you that I was consulted here although I was not competent in the matter, because I could not act on behalf of the legal office of the Reich. And, consequently this whole transaction was carried out later on by the legal office. I was only to purchase the grounds for the school building so that we would be able to clear up the matter easier financially.
Q Let me show you another document, witness, and ask you to identify it. This is Document NO-4082. I will mark it as Prosecution Exhibit 616-
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Mr. Robbins, I didn't get 615 -
MR. ROBBINS: I am sorry, this is 615. I skipped a number. Four-zero-eight-two, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Written by Volk?
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q This is your signature on the letter, is it not?
A Yes, it is.
Q Do you see the statement that Hoffman acquired the brick works for the German Reich?
A Yes.
Q Doesn't that contradict your testimony that you just gave me?
A No, it doesn't
Q I asked you if Hoffmann acquired the brick works for the Reich, and you said that he did not?
A That is correct. I stated that he did not do that, and that is correct.
Q Then the statement ***** --
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A Well, it is wrong to some extent, but not quite wrong. I must explain the matter to you so that you will be able to understand. May I do that?
Q Please do.
A Oberscharfuehrer Hoffmann at the time was still working in the legal department of the DEST. Consequently he was not working for the legal department of Staff W. At the time I believed that Hoffmann would be able to carry out the purchasing contract on behalf of the Reich. However, I made a mistake at the time because I had only been in the WVHA for four, six, or eight months. However, Hoffman actually did not carry out this contract on behalf of the German Reich, as far as I can recall. As far as I can recall, Dr. Ast carried out this purchasing contract for the German Reich. Hoffman was a collaborator in the legal department of the DEST, Office W-I, in my opinion, and I know that now. He could not even act on behalf of the German Reich.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute. Either Hoffmann or somebody else did complete the contracts, and the brick works was acquired by the Reich.
WITNESS: Yes, the Brick Works were purchased by the German Reich, by Office Group A.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q And then the statement in your memorandum that following "my instructions Hoffmann carried out the negotiations in this matter in the meantime, and in particular he acquired the brick works," is incorrect? Is that right?
AAccording to the knowledge which I have today it must be wrong. However, I don't know that the possibility exists that Hoffmann, from the Legal Office A-3, was ordered to act on that one occasion on behalf of the German Reich. That is quite possible. However, I don't know that. After all, at that time he was not yet working in my department.
Q I should like to show you another document, witness, which is 4085, which I will mark as Prosecution Exhibit 616-
Court No. II, Case No. 5.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q May I interrupt. Witness, you said Hoffmann was in the legal department of what? Before he came to Staff W...
A He was in the legal department of the DEST, Office W-I.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q I ask you, with reference to Document 4085, what Amtsgruppe B had to do with this transaction Concentration Camp Stutthof. At the same time-- Well, go ahead and answer my question.
A I do not have any precise knowledge. I assume that Office Group B wanted to receive the rents for the space from offices W-4 and W-5. I have seen that here for the first time now. These are the amounts for the property leased by the German Reich to the economic enterprises.
Q And Office Group B wanted to receive the rents, you said?
A Yes, I assume that, but I don't know it for certain. This is Office Group B. I believe that this is the administration which was in charge of the accommodations, because this administration for accommodations had been mentioned in the document, in my direct examination. However, I want to say now that I cannot make this statement with one hundred percent certainty. The Tribunal should not depend on this statement because I have too little knowledge about Office Group D in this matter.
Q Witness, this is signed by Maurer, is it not?
A Yes, this letter is signed by Maurer.
Q You say this is the first time you heard about it?
A I have seen this letter for the first time here.
Q Well, let me show you another document, witness, that I think will refresh your recollection. This is 4084. I think you must have known a good deal more about this than you have told us. Is this letter signed by you?
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 601?
MR. ROBBINS:NO-4084, I will mark as Prosecution Exhibit 617... This is signed by you, is it not?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
WITNESS: Yes, I did not work on this matter, but it was signed by me.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q And it is in answer to the letter which is Document 4085, is it not?
A Yes, that is correct. It was placed before me for my signature, and the man who worked on the matter was Ansorge. He received the other document, but he didn't show it to me. He handled the matter and he signed it for the DWB G.m.b.H. And that is always the man who handles the matter, according to German law. I signed at the left but I still did not see this letter here. I only signed the answer. It was put before me for the file which contained letters awaiting my signature. That is why I can't recall this letter at all.
Q. You know very well, don't you, what function Office Group B played in this? You were the legal expert there.
A. I was not the legal expert for Office Group B.
Q. What did W-IV and W-V have to do with it?
A. I have already stated that W-IV and W-V had rented the enterprises from the German Reich and the German Reich had purchased these enterprises through the Legal Office, A-III. The German Reich was represented in this case by the WVHA and it leased these enterprises.
(1) It leased the brick works to the DEST, G.m.b.H., to Office W-I.
(2) To the DAW it leased the carpenter shops, Office W-IV.
The Gut Werderhof Estate it leased to Office W-V and for these leased properties the companies had to pay certain interest on the plants.
Q. I think you have answered the question. There weren't any other industries under Office W-V that you haven't mentioned, were there, that are located here?
A. I can't recall any at the moment, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q. What did Office Group C-II, Kiefer's office, have to do with the transaction concerning the sale of property here?
A. As far as I can recall, Office Group C - what office it was I don't know - but Office Group C was to evaluate the property and that was the property on which this school was to be established. They were just to give an estimate of the value of that. A purchasing contract could be concluded; however, afterwards, this project was not carried out at all.
Q. This was Office C-II, wasn't it?
A. I don't know what office it was. I am actually an outsider, a layman, as far as Office Group C is concerned. I am just a greenhorn.
Q. Let me see if this helps you recall. This is NO-4086, which I will mark as Prosecution Exhibit 618. Is your name on this document, witness?
A. Please give me an opportunity to read the document first.
Q. You can see your signature down there, can't you, without read ing the whole document?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, all these things happened six years ago. You can't rush me here. After all, I want to make true statements. My name was put down on that document.
Q. Now tell us, after you have read the document--
THE PRESIDENT: I don't like that "my name is put down on the document." Did you sign it?
THE WITNESS: No, I did not.
Q. Your name is at the bottom of the document, isn't it?
A. Yes, my name is contained in the document. However, I did not write that.
Q. And who is the Obersturmfuehrer that signed the document?
A. Obersturmfuehrer -- I shall find the name in just a moment.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Is that so important, Mr. Robbins?
MR. ROBBINS: I think we can go on.
THE WITNESS: I have just found the name. It was Obersturmfuehrer Finke.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: How did your name get on this document? Did you put it on there?
THE WITNESS: Obersturmfuehrer Finke put my name down on that document.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Why?
THE WITNESS: Because this matter probably was to be brought to my attention.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Was it brought to your attention?
THE WITNESS: I can't recall that any more, Your Honor. I cannot recall it. Since I did not countersign it with DrV, which I usually did in a matter which was sent to me, I assume, but I don't know it for certain, that it was not brought to my knowledge. However, I know something about the matter in general.
Q. Tell us first who wrote your name at the bottom of the document Didn't you? Isn't that your handwriting?
A. No, it is not.
Q. It is Obersturmfuehrer Winkle's handwriting?
A. Finke.
Q. That's not your handwriting?
A. No.
Q. Tell us what C-II had to do with the matter.
A. If the purchase of the school had been approved by the Reich Forestry Administration and if that contract had been concluded, and if the DWB, G.m.b.H., on its part would have sold the school and the property to the German Reich, then DWB would have paid 300,000 Reichsmarks to several of the Regular Police and the remainder of the sale -- it is normally put at one and a half million, where actually it would have been seven or eight hundred thousand marks, it would have been turned over to the company which was to carry out that construction after the war. Dr. Kammler intended to put all the public utility construction firms into Office C-II and the Allort was already contained there and the First Wiener, G.m.b.H., and the Public Utilities Housing and Real Estate, G.m.b.H., was to be taken out from the so-called Staff W, and it was to be transferred to Office C-II. For this reason this document was written in order to carry out the construction program after the war.
Q. And you see the reference to Standartenfuehrer Loerner?
A. I didn't understand your question.
Q. This reference to Hans Loerner.
A. Yes.
Q. And what did Amtsgruppe A have to do with the matter, specifically A-II or A-I?
A. This refers to the document in Document Book IV. Standartenfuehrer Loerner was to see to it that the Chief of the Regular Police was to receive the 300,000 marks or the Auditing Court ordered him to pay back the 300,000 marks to the Regular Police. That is why the name Standartenfuehrer Loerner is mentioned here. This matter is connected with the document--
Q. I think we know the letter.
A. It is connected with Document NO-2117 in Document Book No. IV.
Q. And that is Hans Loerner's letter?
A. It is a letter from Hans Loerner, yes, that is correct.
Q. Now, witness, can you tell us briefly what your official contacts with Amtsgruppe A were?
A. I did not have any official business contact with Office Group A. If the DWB was to clear up the financial matters, the 300,000 marks were to be repaid. I don't know if you can call this any official contact.
Q. I am passing on to another complex now, leaving the Stutthof matter. In general, what was the relationship between the DWB and Amtsgruppe A, if any?
A. The relationship between Office Group A and the Economic Enterprises was above all in the personnel office. The WVHA and the Waffen SS, as was also done in my case, wanted to have efficient collaborators in the Waffen SS and the chief of the office then received the order from Pohl to assign a particular person to work with the DWB. He himself could not decide about that. The Chief of Office A-V did not want to replace any people because he said these were responsible groups and he wanted to have them at the front. Pohl, however, then ordered them and then he worked the cirriculum vitae so that the man in personnel there had to see he was going to work with the DWB and that is the main contact. Otherwise, you will have to give me various points of reference if you want to know any more about the matter.
Q. Well, let's take a specific case then. Will you turn to Document Book XIX, to page 15 in the German text, page 12 in the English, to Exhibit 483, NO-1226. These documents concern the Reinhardt Fund. You have seen this document before, haven't you, a loan from the Reinhardt Fund from Dr. Hohberg?
A. Yes
Q. Do you recall that your initials are on this document?
A. I saw this document. It is not countersigned in the English document book. I guess my initials were not put on the English version. It should be "DV".
JUDGE PHILLIPS: What page is that, Mr. Robbins?
MR. ROBBINS: It is page 12 in Book XIX.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Just to make certain, let me show you No. 483, the photostatic copy, and ask you if this is your initials on that letter?
A. Yes, I have already stated I knew about the matter.
Q. And let me show you the next document concerning the financing of the OSTI, Exhibit No. 484, and ask you if this is your initials on this document. On this letter to Mellmer, on page 15 of the English book, dated 13 August 1943.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, will you tell us what part you had in this matter?
A. It is stated by the first document that Dr. Wenner and Dr. Hohberg went to see Gruppenfuehrer Frank, and they discussed the financial matter. Just what matter was concerned here I cannot even tell you today, because it never came to my knowledge. Gruppenfuehrer Frank stated that the money which had been given the DWB by the Reinhardt Fund was not effected by the matter. I don't know any more about it. This letter was brought to my attention by Dr. Hohberg, and then I countersigned it with my initials.
Q. Did you talk to anybody about it?
A. I don't know that any more today. I acknowledged the letter, and so far as that letter was concerned, that matter was settled for me, because it had nothing to do with my field of work.
Q. You don't recall talking to Dr. Hohberg about it?
A. I cannot recall that any more today.
Q. And is it your testimony today that you did not know about the source of this Reinhardt Fund?
A. No, I don't know about it. With regard to the second letter, I want to say that it was given to me by Baier, and Dr. Wenner had a discussion with Hauptsturmfuehrer Mellmer. Dr. Wenner then made a report to Baier and, since Dr. Wenner had to go away on a trip, Baier probably said, "Dr. Volk, will you kindly and quickly formulate this matter?" and I formulated this letter, and turned it over to Hauptsturmfuehrer Mellmer, because it was within his field of competence. It was stated here, after a discussion between Wenner and Dr. Mellmer, that this was not part of my field of task, and Wenner gave it to me and told me to formulate the matter, and that is exactly what I did, and I put my initials down at the bottom of the page to show that was the order of the letter.
Q. Did you talk to Mellmer at any time?
A. I said hello but otherwise I did not have any contact with him at all. In any case I cannot remember having had any with him.
Q. You did not discuss the financing of the OSTI, or the Reinhardt Fund, in any way with him?
A. I did not so far as I can recall.
Q. And is it your testimony that you did not hear at any time about the utilization of clothing in the East?
A. I cannot recall that.
Q. You did not hear about the utilization of gold teeth and spectacles?
A. No.
Q. You did not hear about Vogt's auditing report which he made after going to the East?
A. No.
Q. Witness, coming to another matter, I want to show you another document and ask you if you can identify this.
A. Yes.
Q. You have seen this document before?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Will you tell me who prepared it?
A. I assume that Baier did or it may have been an expert who was working for Baier.
Q. And does this correctly state your work domain under paragraph one of the document as a legal expert in Staff W?
A. No, it does not.
Q. In what respect does it not?
A. This was only a draft in its specification of the fields of work.
Q. That does not answer my question.
A. It was only a draft of the business distribution plan, and I objected to this distribution plan.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute.
THE WITNESS: To Baier.
THE PRESIDENT: Answer the question, witness. Does paragraph one correctly define the duties that you performed? Never mind whether you objected to it, but just answer the question.
THE WITNESS: Yes, with the exception of the official deputizing for the Chief W.
Q. And everything else is correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And during recess will you look over the rest of the document and tell me whether the other items in the document are correct. Will you tell me now for what purposes this document was prepared?
A. A business distribution plan was to be established.
Q. What do you mean by that, "a business distribution plan"?
A. Baier wanted to specify the field of work which the individual person would have to deal with in Staff W.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it is a job description report, isn't it? It describes the jobs of the different people in Staff W?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. And was this circulated at the office?
A. No.
Q. Do you know what happened to it? What happened to the job description?
A. I don't know. In any case I cannot recall it.
Q. You don't know that it was sent out under Baier's signature, and circulated in the offices, is that right?
A. I cannot remember that.
THE PRESIDENT: We'll take a recess for fifteen minutes.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. VON STEIN (Counsel for the defendant Eirenschmalz): May it please the Court, I have this request to make. When the defendant Eirenschmalz was examined by the prosecution on the witness stand, an affidavit was submitted by the prosecution which was followed up by another affidavit later on, and further affidavits were promised. At that time I asked the Court that either I should be allowed to crossexamine the witness of the prosecution or else submit a counter-affidavit. Having discussed this matter with my client, I have reached this result: The incriminating facts were concerned only with the years before the war, and in my opinion it therefore would be adequate for me to submit a counter-affidavit. I have made several applications that I would be allowed to discuss it with the witness. The prosecution, however, felt that I should ask this witness here to be cross-examined, for which reasons they made objections. I have just discussed the matter with Mr. Robbins and he told me I was to put this matter before the Court. However, if the Court would give me permission to take down a counter-affidavit, Mr. Robbins would prefer it if I were to cross-examine the witness here. I told him that this would be agreeable to me if I were given the opportunity of discussing the matter with the witness beforehand, so that we are all at equal terms. Mr. Robbins is of the opinion that this is impossible. I therefore want only to take down a counter-affidavit. I should be grateful for the Court's ruling.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is the-- What is the name of the witness. Dr. von Stein?
DR. VON STEIN: Hubert Karl.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, I think there are special circumstances in this case. This is the only instance in which the prosecution has stood an objection of the defense talking to a witness. In the first place Hubert Karl is a prosecution witness. We went to a good deal of trouble to find someone who was familiar with the construction program of the WVHA and its predecessors, and he's given two affidavits which we have made available to the defense in advance rather than to call him as a rebuttal witness in order to save time.
And we are eager to have him cross-examined here in open court on his affidavit. As to the defense attorneys taking affidavits from Karl, we would have no objection to that except that there are about 8 or 9 defense attorneys who have requested interrogations of Karl, and with our limited number of interrogators, it would mean that it would tie up our interrogators for the next week or two just sitting in on interrogations of Hubert Karl.
I think it would save time all around to have him brought here into court. Each attorney, as I said, and there are about 8 who have filed requests to interrogate him, and if each attorney schedules two or three interrogations it takes up a lot of time. Furthermore, I think it is rather unusual that the opposition be given an opportunity to talk to a prosecution witness before he is cross-examined. The prosecution doesn't talk to defense witnesses before they are cross-examined, and I just can't see that there is any right for the defense counsel to talk to a prosecution witness before he is cross-examined on the evidence that he has given. In addition to that, as I say, it would be extremely inconvenient for the prosecution. The Court is aware that the prosecution has the right to sit in on the interrogations that are granted to the defense counsel. As a practical matter, it would be impossible for us to do so because of the large number of interrogations requested.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, another reason in favor of the witness being brought to court rather than submitting affidavits is that it gives the Tribunal an opportunity to ask questions of the witness which may not have been covered in the affidavit. That frequently happens that we have questions that interest us that are not covered by an affidavit. Just a minute, please.
Dr. von Stein, if this witness had been produced in court by the prosecution, you would have been obliged to go ahead and cross-examine without any private questioning of the witness. I don't see that the situation is any different now. And therefore your request that you be permitted to interrogate the witness at length, you and a number of your colleagues, and then to cross-examine, and then to prepare an affidavit seems unreasonable.
The controlling thing here, however, is that the Tribunal is interested in seeing this witness. His credibility before us is to be determined, and we will doubtless have a number of questions to ask him ourselves which we can't do unless he is produced in court.
Therefore, the Tribunal orders that he be produced upon your request for cross examination by you and other defense counsel, but without the opportunity for previous interrogation before his appearance in court.
DR. VON STEIN (Counsel for defendant Eirenschmalz): May it please the Court, may I put just one question? Will this witness be heard only about the contents of the two affidavits, or will he be asked other questions outside the contents of the affidavits?
THE PRESIDENT: He may be asked any questions that have to do with the indictment by either the prosecution or defense. He may be questioned about any relevant material matter.
DR. VON STEIN: May it please the Court, I feel in that case that questions might arise which I will not be able to put to him without consulting my client first. I am in a somewhat difficult situation there. It is quite possible that the prosecution, who have already interviewed the witness, will touch on new questions without my being able to do anything about it because I haven't consulted with my client about it.
THE PRESIDENT: No, the Tribunal will see to it that you are not handicapped or jeopardized in that respect. If you want time to consult with your client and then to cross-examine further, of course you may have it.
DR. VON STEIN: Mr. President, has a special time been arranged actually for the cross examination?
THE PRESIDENT: No, not yet; no time has been set.
DR. VON STEIN: But the time will be decided by the Court? Or do I have to file a new application?
THE PRESIDENT: No, you don't need to file a new application; permission has already been granted. I suppose, Mr. Robbins, the logical time would be after the last defendant has testified in his own behalf?
MR. ROBBINS: I think so, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You don't need any further authority or permission. It has been granted.
DR. VON STEIN: Thank you very much, Your Honor.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Have you had an opportunity to look at NO-3861, which is the job description and which has been marked as Prosecution Exhibit 618?
THE PRESIDENT: No, no, 619. 3831, Exhibit 619.
MR. ROBBINS: Correction. 619.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
A. Yes.
Q. Will you point out to us in what respects, if any, this job description is incorrect?
A. This specification, so to speak, castrated me, so to say, legally for the simple reason that I was too deeply involved in the duties as Pohl's personal assistant. It was difficult to reach me and my legal sphere of work was neglected. Therefore, law was, in actual fact, taken away from me, and although it says up on top. "Taking care of difficult legal matters," but lower down it says that all work on all legal matters connected with the DWB was up to Dr. Hoffmann. It did say up on top "Taking care of difficult legal matters concerning management of the concern and handling of basic legal problems of the individual enterprises." Such enterprises which had their own legal departments did not hand legal matters which were to be handled to the top company. The reason for that was that the legal experts in the subsidiary companies did not want to lost prestige with their office chiefs who were frequently legal experts themselves. For that reason the office chief, of course, said, "Surely you can do that yourself. You don't have to worry Dr. Volk or Dr. Hoffmann about that."
Only when the business distribution plan which has become part of our documents here, was it to become compulsory for the subsidiary companies; but for me - so that the pill would be sweetened - I was called the deputy of chief W, which I was before. The Chief W was deputized for by me because I was the senior expert in the department. I deputized only when he was absent. I simply looked to it that the office routine went on, but I did not deputize for him in his pragmatic duties, and Pohl actually did not want me to.
Q. Now, witness, I want to go on to another matter. Is it your testimony that you knew nothing about medical experiments in concentration camps?