And then, they can charge individual members with certain tasks. Then comes the second paragraph and that states explicitly: Measures of the business management cannot be transferred to the board of supervisors. Therefore, a member of the board of supervisors cannot carry out any business. That is the German stockholders law which was in existence then. In addition to this, in the companies which were under the supervision of the WVHA, Pohl carried out the Furhrer Principle. With the exception of the Golleschau Company, he never ordered any meeting of the board of supervisors to take place, nor did he ever attend any. He made all the necessary decisions with the business managers whenever he had discussions with them. No board of supervisors was ever consulted, but Pohl gave the orders.
Q. In this connection I have one more question about the SchieferOel GmbH. The following question was put to you, with reference to the document which I just showed to you, the files of the local court at Berlin. "This same document shows", that was the question, "that you and Pohl carried out the appointment of the business manager." You answered this question briefly with "yes". I now want to ask you: Did Pohl discuss the matter with you before, as is customary, or as is necessary between two partners? Die he ask you who was to become the business manager, or did he just give the order and you had to agree with him?
A. I answered the question in the affirmative because according to commercial law it is necessary that formally I had to assist in the appointment of a business manager, because I, so to speak, was a dummy, I was one of the partners. In fact, however, the state of affairs was different. Pohl didn't ask me about this matter, not did Pohl ask me for my consent. Pohl was the general, and I was a captain. I had been conscripted into the Waffen-SS, what also could I do. After all, I have received one single penny for my activity which I carried out there, that activity.
Court No. II, Case No. IV
Q. Can we say, therefore, that you together with Pohl appointed the business manager?
A. According to penal law, if you want to judge it from that aspect, I must say no. If you look at the question from the civil law, then I must say yes. That is my opinion.
Q. In this connection you were also asked: You say that you were one of the founders, and that you invested some capital, and then you were asked some other questions so that you did not answer this particular question. --Just a moment please -- Usually when a company is founded, who provides the capital?
A. Well the persons who found it.
Q. Was that the case here?
A. No.
Q. Why was it different here?
A. Because I didn't have any capital. Furthermore, I wouldn't put any money into a company from which I would not get any profits.
Q. Do you know who provided the funds?
A. I assume that the German Reich provided the funds. But not from Treasury A. After all, Pohl had funds which he would draw from.
Q. Did you put the capital into the company as is usual with companies? Did you even care about that?
A. I didn't even see anything about it.
Q. You were further asked the following question: You also were a Syndikus in the Slate-Oil Company, is this question correct?
A. No.
Q. Did you work -- were you supposed to be a Syndikus for the SlateOil Company?
A. THE PRESIDENT: This isn't redirect examination, Dr. Gawlik, this is just going over his direct examination, repeating it. He's been asked all of these questions by you in the first instance, when he first went on the stand.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, this is a question which was asked in the cross examination.
I just quoted it, I didn't ask that question.
THE PRESIDENT: About the Syndikus?
DR. GAWLIK: I had the question written down in shorthand, and it reads -- you were also a Syndikus in the Slate-Oil Company.
THE PRESIDENT: And he said no.
DR. GAWLIK: And then he replied, the title also goes along with me. That is why I wanted to discuss the matter once more. That wasn't a question that I asked in the first instance, Your Honor.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Robbins asked him the same question: Were you a Syndikus in the Slate Oil Company? He said no; didn't he?
DR. GAWLIK (Counsel for defendant Volk): Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Now you ask him, "Were you a Syndikus in the Slate Oil Company?" And he says, no.
DR. GAWLIK: Well, that was only a preliminary question, Your Honor. Then other questions were asked the witness and he was interrupted.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, don't even ask the preliminary questions all over again; and, by the way, didn't you just show me a document in which he was in the Slate Oil Company with 5,000 Reichsmarks?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you ask him whether he was in the organization, the Slate Oil Company, and he says, no; and you showed him that document.
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, Your Honor, but-
THE PRESIDENT: I know what is in it. Apparently he doesn't.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, from the questions which the Prosecutor put, I had to conclude that this point had not yet been clarified. The Prosecutor asked the witness "And, therefore, you also were a Syndikus in the Slate Oil Company." And then the witness replied, "The title always goes along with me." And then the Prosecutor continued his question, "What did you do in the Portland Cement Company as a Syndikus?"
THE PRESIDENT: Portland Cement Company...?
DR. GAWLIK: "Nothing." And he continued to ask, "Did you get paid as a Syndikus?" And from that I concluded that the title of Syndikus which the witness had, and that his relationship to the Slate Oil Company and to the Portland Cement Company, has not been clarified.
If the Tribunal understands it, then I will be able to conclude this question. The witness did not do anything there, and he didn't carry out any activity there.
THE PRESIDENT: That is just what he told Mr. Robbins, that he Court No. II, Case No. 4.didn't do anything, and that he didn't get paid.
Isn't that true?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, Your Honor. But if he didn't do anything, why was the question asked? "Were you paid for that?"
And then the witness wanted to explain his position to the matter and he stated, "I will be able to explain that to you in the redirect examination." And now I want to give the witness the opportunity to explain whatever he wanted to tell us. I want to give him the opportunity now.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean about a Syndikus in the Slate Oil Company or the Portland Cement Company?
DR. GAWLIK: I mean his position as a Syndikus in both. I want to show that he was not a Syndikus in any of these companies.
THE PRESIDENT: Well? that is the same answer that he gave to Mr. Robbins. He said he never was; my name was there, I didn't do anything and I didn't get paid. Now, he will tell you the same thing, won't he?
DR. GAWLIK: I only wanted to ask whether the witness wanted to add something to his previous testimony.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what I am afraid of, you see. I am afraid how far you will go when he adds something. Well, all right, go ahead and ask it. But I am going to stop him very soon.
Go ahead and ask him what it was he wanted to add. Go ahead.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Do you want to add anything to your previous testimony, witness?
A Syndikus was a title-
THE PRESIDENT: That I heard nine times. Now go ahead. Next.
WITNESS: As a board of supervisors, we had nothing to say; we had no authority. Just as was the case with the Reich Government, the cabinet did not have a voice either, but orders came from above, the orders came from Adolf Hitler-
THE PRESIDENT: Do you remember? He said that same thing about the Reich Cabinet before.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I am now going to another point.
THE PRESIDENT: Good.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q And then, in your direct examination, you were asked about your trip to Switzerland, and you were asked about what information you gathered there about the concentration camps. You then told us about your discussion with Pohl, and then you gave us half a sentence: "And especially since the commandant Loritz--" And then you were interrupted. Please continue this sentence now.
A Since the commandant Loritz had already been dismissed from his office in 1942 by Pohl, I had to assume that this was a false report, and I believed Pohl that this article in the newspapers was written in line with the enemy propaganda. That is all I wanted to say.
Q In order to clarify the matter, when did Loritz get dismissed?
THE PRESIDENT: We have got that very statement in our notes here. We must have heard it before.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q I am now coming to Document 1292. It is Exhibit 46. Just what statement is contained in that document?
A It says "Information Copy to Office Group W, in the same building." That is to say, Office Group W actually had nothing to do with this matter. They only received an information copy.
Q Now, please take a look at the list which, when the document was circulated, you did not look at. Please take a look at the last number, the last figure contained in that list... "61 Danzig Stutthof." Yes, what is written there?
A Five thousand prisoners of war.
Q Are the prisoners of war listed in the last figure there? And what becomes evident from that?
A Well, it becomes evident that all the others were inmates but near Stutthof there was a big prisoner of war camp which was subordinate to the commander-in-chief of the Army and the chief of the prisoner of war service.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Construction brigades have been mentioned in this document. Can you please tell us the tasks of these construction brigades, and how these construction brigades were organized? After all, they were to employ these inmates and the prisoners of war.
A The construction brigades were subordinated to the chief of Amtsgruppe C, Dr. Kammler. They were brigades, that is to say companies or battalions or other units which consisted of inmates and other workers. They were always used whenever emergency repair work had to be carried out. For example, when railway lines had been bombed, or whenever houses had been bombed. They never stayed at one place permanently. That is all I know about the matter. Since I had nothing to do with the matter I have no further information about it.
Q You stated today in the cross-examination that Office A, amongst other things, had to work on conscription. Who conscripted the members of all branches of the Wehrmacht, including the Waffen SS?
A That was the army corps area. However, when they were conscripted, then, of course, their records were sent to the agency where they served as soldiers. That is what I meant. Since I was conscripted as a soldier, my personnel files were in the hands of SS Brigadefuehrer Fanslau, who was the Chief of Office A-5.
Q Do you have Document NO-1027, Exhibit 613 which was submitted this morning?
A No, I don't have it.
Q Well, I am going to hand you this document now. Was this purchasing contract ever concluded?
A No, this becomes evident from Document-
THE PRESIDENT: Don't repeat it! He told us that this morning. It was never completed, and he proved it by the document that he is now looking at.
DR. GAWLIK: Very well, Your Honor.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q I am now handing you Document NO-4086. It is a letter of the 15th of December, 1942, which was submitted this morning. In what office Court No. II, Case No. 4.was Finke working, who signed this letter?
A He worked in Office C-2.
Q Please read into the record the sentence in parentheses.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute! Are you talking about Exhibit 618, signed by Finke?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, Your Honor. I haven't received my document back yet. It is Exhibit 618.
THE PRESIDENT: Give him the document please.
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, it is Exhibit 618.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, why do you want him to read any part of it? The whole document is in the record. The whole document is in the record. Here it is.
DR. GAWLIK: I want to ask one question in connection with the sentence which I want the witness to read.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, don't have him read it. Ask him the question.
Q. (By Dr. Gawlik) Does this document show that a part of the money was to be used for the settlement and was that the settlement which you had to deal with?
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. Give me that -- The question doesn't mean anything to me. What is it that you want to know? Ask him again, if you please.
DR. GAWLIK: I want to show, Your Honor, that the witness only assisted in the work in the Stutthof matter, because he was interested in the settlement there.
THE PRESIDENT: He told us that this morning. Don't you remember? He told us that all he was interested in -- was the building settlement.
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, and that was also shown by this document which was submitted today.
THE PRESIDENT: When you come to the argument, you can say that. You can prove that.
DR. GAWLIK: Well, he worked on it and, of course, he has better knowledge about that than I have; that is why I wanted to have this fact confirmed by him as a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: You want him to make your argument on this point.
DR. GAWLIK: No, he was to confirm that as a witness, on the basis of the document.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
A. Yes, I was to receive the money for the settlement as soon as the contract had been concluded.
Q. Is that shown by the document?
A. Yes.
Q. In what sentence?
A. It says that it has been discussed here and that the money would be furnished for the SS settlement program in Danzig.
Q. Very well. I am now coming to another point, the medical experiments. What do you know about the activity of Dr. Vaernet?
A. I knew that Dr. Vaernet worked in the laboratory of the German Heilmittelex, G.m.b.H., and I knew that he was experimenting on a process.
I didn't know anything else about it.
Q. Did you know Dr. Vaernet?
A. No, I have never talked to him. I have never seen him.
Q. Did you have any knowledge of the process on which he worked there?
A. No.
Q. Did you hear any details about his method?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever hear that for this purpose concentration camp inmates had been used?
A. No.
Q. Do you know that in the opinion of Swiss Physicians this method of Dr. Vaernet were not an experiments, but that this was just a sort of medical treatment which has been discussed in detail in medical science?
A. Yes, I think it has been discussed in the Medical Trial.
Q. What do you know about the laws which existed in Germany about the confiscation of Jewish owned property?
THE PRESIDENT: It's the book. It's the same book. I think I know the section number, the paragraph number. No, I am afraid to gress. I think it was 282. Right?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, if I would have to give a lecture about that, it would take up five hours.
DR. GAWLIK: Now my final question.
Q. (By Dr. Gawlik) Now my final question. Were all Jews in Germany put in concentration camps during the war?
A. No.
Q. For example, in Berlin were there still many Jews left who were not put into concentration camps?
A. Yes, in 1944 on a Jewish holiday in Kaiser-Allee in Berlin, I saw a very large number of Jews. They must have come from some sort of a meeting and, after all, they could be recognized because they wore the yellow stars, the arm bands, and I know from the letters that my mother sends me from Berlin that a large number of Jewish families are now living in Berlin.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I have no further questions. My document book has not been completely translated yet and I wish to reserve the right to submit the document book later on. Two witnesses were approved for me and I shall submit affidavits from them later. For the time being, I have finished my case for Dr. Volk.
THE PRESIDENT: Any re-recross examination?
MR. ROBBINS: None, Your Honor.
DR. HEIM (Attorney for Defendant Hohberg): Your Honor, I only have six questions -
THE PRESIDENT: You have six questions and six minutes.
DR. HEIM: No, Your Honor, I shall only take five minutes to do that.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q. The first three questions deal with Document No-4090. It is Exhibit 614. Witness -
A. I don't have the document. You will have to hand it to me.
Q. Witness, this morning Judge Phillips asked you whether you gave a copy of this document to Dr. Hohberg because Dr. Hohberg was the Chief of Staff W and you answered that question in the affirmative. In this connection, I would like to ask you, did you in general, pass on copies of all letters, even those which were sent out by your office, and you turned these letters over to Dr. Hohberg because, according to your testimony, he was the Chief of Staff W?
A. You must ask me in what year. I had various fields of work. In 1942, on the 24th of January, or the 23d of January, 1942, I was not yet Pohl's secretary. At that time I was still in Staff W with Dr. Hohberg. At that time Dr. Hohberg was my superior as far as the work was concerned and on these occasions I would submit my letters to him. Whether I submitted all letters to him, I don't know.
Q. Thank you, Witness, now I have a second question. Why didn't you state in your letter -- why did you not say Dr. Hohberg, Chief of Staff W, if Dr. Hohberg, according to your testimony was your superior as far as the work was concerned.
A. The letters which I submitted to Chief W, Oberfuehrer Baier, and there are many documents, I only wrote on them, "Oberfurhrer Baier," and since Dr. Hohberg had an academic grade, I put on Dr. Hohberg. Whenever mail was passed on, I did not write Chief of Staff W or Staff W.
DR. HEIM: Thank you. Your Honor, now my questions have come down to five. I only have three more questions now. Your Honors, please permit me to ask three more questions to the veracity of this witness, since my client, Dr. Hohberg has been incriminated by this witness.
Q. (By Dr. Heim) You stated in your direct examination and also in the cross-examination by the prosecution that you had been the business manager of only three companies; (1) The Public Utility Company at Dachau, the House and Real Estate, G.m.b.H., and (3), the Comradeship Settlement. Is that your testimony correct?
THE PRESIDENT: What was the last one, Dr. Heim?
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I wanted permission to ask three questions.
THE PRESIDENT: No, what was the name of the third company. There was one at Dachau -
DR. HEIM: That was the Comradeship Settlement.
Q. (By Dr. Heim) Witness, I asked you, were you only the business manager in these three companies or did you hold that position in any other company?
A. If you put the question in this way: It is possible that in a single instance I hold that position elsewhere, but I can't recall that at the moment.
Q. Witness, I would like to refresh your memory. Witness, here we have two card index forms. Which is the DWB
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I object to this question. This question is not relevant at all. It has no probative value, because the veracity of the witness cannot be upset here, because we have heard that the witness had so much work to do and that he acted as dummy for so many companies that even if perhaps Pohl in a formal sense had appointed him to some position or other, then this cannot effect the veracity of the witness in any way here.
The whole attack apparently only aims at incriminating the witness, and that certainly is not admissible. That also becomes evident from the way in which these questions are asked, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: What question is immaterial? He hasn't asked any question yet.
DR. GAWLIK: He asked the question whether the witness had only been business manager in the companies which he has mentioned.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but that question has been answered and now he is showing him a document. He hasn't asked him any other question. Go ahead, Dr. Heim.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q. Witness, here we have two card index files which Dr. Hohberg, it is mentioned in Exhibit No. 619, used in the DWB. In this connection I would like to ask you were you the business manager of the Research Institute for the German Publishing System (Forschungsgesellschaft fuer das Deutsche Buchwesen)?
A. I don't know that. In this connection I only want to say that this company never went into operation. However, I shall ask my defense counsel to look at the Trade Register in Berlin.
THE PRESIDENT: You don't know it. That's the answer. Next question.
Q. Witness, were you the business manager of the Lumbeck Company for the German Publishing System (Lumbeck Gesellschaft fuer das Deutsche Buchwesen)?
A. Yes. That is a subsidiary company. It never went into operation either. I don't know that.
Q. Witness, I asked you if you were the business manager.
A. I don't know that.
Q. Thank you, I have no further questions.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. In this connection I have a couple more questions, Your Honor. Please describe to the Tribunal what sort of companies these were.
THE PRESIDENT: The answer that was given was favorable to you and you can't impeach it. He said he didn't know. No damage has been done and you have no need of impeaching the answer.
DR. HEIM: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will remove the witness permanently from the witness stand and the Tribunal will be in recess as usual.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. FICHT: Dr. Ficht for the Defendant Klein.
May it please the Court, I would like to make a request to excuse the Defendant Klein from attending tomorrow's session so that he can prepare his defense.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you hear me? It is fading out.
DR. FICHT: I request that the Defendant Klein be excused from tomorrow's session so that he can prepare his defense.
THE PRESIDENT: At the request of his counsel, the Defendant Klein will be excused from attending tomorrow's session of court. The trial will proceed without him.
DR. GAWLIK: Dr. Gawlik for the Defendant Bobermin.
May it please the Court, I should like also to have the Defendant Bobermin excused from tomorrow's session in order to prepare his defense.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Bobermin may also be excused for the same reason.
DR. FROESCHMANN: May it please the Court, may I draw your attention to the fact that I have requested a number of witnesses, but I have not yet heard what the Court's decision is. I cannot take any steps until I have heard the Court's decision. This is the Witness Dr. Winkler and a number of other witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court has already passed upon all applications for witnesses by the defense.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you had better inquire at the Defense Information Center, because I have no applications that have not been passed upon. There is a witness on the stand. Whose witness is he?
DR. FROESCHMANN: Dr. Froeschmann for Mummenthey.
May it please the Court, the Marshal, in order not to waste the Court's time, has put the witness on the stand.
I first of all wanted to ash the Court to put the witness on the stand.
THE PRESIDENT: Is he your witness?
DR. FROESCHMANN: Yes, he is.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
DR. FROESCHMANN: May it please the Court, before the witness is sworn in I should like to make a brief statement.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me administer the oath to the witness and then he can sit down.
HIENZ GERHARD FRANZ SCHWARZ, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: Raise your right hand. Repeat after me.
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: Be seated please.
DR. FROESCHMANN: May it please the Tribunal, as counsel for the defendant Mummenthey, it is my task to give to the Court a clear picture of conditions in the enterprises of the DEST, about the way the Defendant Mummenthey managed them, on the limits of his responsibility, the allocation and the treatment of inmates, and Mummenthey's knowledge about these things, his attitude and the measures he took.
Apart from one enterprise, I have been supplied with affidavits by all plants of the work managers concerned, and also of outsiders, particularly by inmates themselves. They will give a comprehensive picture to the Court.
I regret that the two document books, although I have given them to the Translation Department on the 13th of July, have not yet been translated. This will, of course, raise considerable difficul ties for my defense.
I shall therefore be grateful if the Court could kindly support me by telling the Secretary-General that these translations should be speeded up and submitted to the Court. As witnesses I had called Schwarz and Blumberg who were employees of the DEST, as well as Mummenthey himself. I have also applied for Bickel of Hamburg-Neuengamme as a witness, although he has submitted an affidavit, but this does not contain all the knowledge, which this witness has quite generally, on inmates in German concentration camps and economic enterprises.
I am in agreement with the opinion expressed by the Presiding Judge this morning, that it is much more important to examine a wit ness than to hear an affidavit because it gives the Tribunal the possibility to ask for information on questions which are not contained in the affidavit, I should be grateful if I could have the Witness Bickel on the witness stand for direct examination, and I shall therefore forego the affidavit. After the Court has ruled about that, I should like to have Heinz Gerhard Schwarz on the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, this is a striking example of why the Translation Division is unable to deliver your material on time. You have an affidavit from this witness, and in addition to that you are going to call him as a witness to the witness stand, is that true?
DR. FROESCHMANN: If Your Honors please, quite some time ago I was furnished with the affidavit by this witness, and only after I had read the affidavit I was in a position to inform myself on other questions on which the defendant will throw a light on condition in the DEST. Had I known that at the time I would, of course, not have had the affidavit translated by the translation department. I am extremely sorry to have given additional work to the Translation Department for once, but I was not in a position to know whether or not I could call the witness to Nurnberg.
Now the witness has turned up on his own initiative and has put himself at my disposal.
THE PRESIDENT: That explanation is quite sufficient, but I want to explain, and I think I sent in a notice to the Defense Information Center a few days ago, that if you propose to call a witness to the witness stand it is entirely unnecessary to also file an affidavit which says the same thing which the witness has said. It means more paper, more work for both counsel and the Tribunal. I understand the special circumstances in this particular case. All right, sir.
DR. FROESCHMANN: May I then start to examine this witness, Heinz Gerhard Franz Schwarz.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. FORESCHMANN:
Q. Witness, what is your first and second name?
A. Heinz Gerhard Franz Schwarz.
Q. Where were you born?
A. 12 March 1909 at Bad Liebenwerda, Saxony.
THE INTERPRETER: I am afraid, sir, there is no volume on the witness's mike. It is just being put right.
Q. (By Dr. Froeschmann) Witness, since when are you in custody?
A. Since 25 May, 1945.
Q. Is there a trial against you anywhere?
A. No.
Q. Have you been furnished with an indictment?
A. No.
Q. Will you please give the Court a brief description of your curriculum vitae?
A. After I left secondary school between 1923 and 1938, I worked with a large firm in Saxony as an industrial merchant.
In 1938 I applied for a position on the basis of a classified advertisement in the newspapers. I found out later that here I was dealing with the WVHA, as it was called later.
THE INTERPRETER: Will you please talk a little more slowly?
A. (Continued) In April 1938 I joined the German Earth & Stone Works, the DEST, as an industrial merchant. My first tasks were of a general commercial nature. Later on I became the manager of the sales department of the granite industry, and in the end, from 1941 on, I was in charge of the commercial department of the granite quarries, in particular the purchase and sale of contingents and transportation. I held that position until the surrender.
Q. Will you please tell the court what positions, important under commercial law, you held in DEST?
A. After 1938 and until 1939 I was in charge of the commercial department. Up to '42 I was prokurist, and from 1942 until the end, I was the third commercial manager.
Q. Who was manager of DEST at the same time with you?
A. Defendant Mumenthey and Schondorf.
Q. Did you manage Salpeter?
A. Of course, he was at that time and until '41 manager and office chief.
Q. When did Salpeter leave his position as manager of DEST, that is to say, to be more precise, when was he given leave to join the Army?
A. In 1941.
Q. What time of the year?
A. I think in the Spring.
Q. I believe you are wrong. I think it was only in the autumn. Is that possible?
A. Yes that is quite possible. I am not absolutely certain of the precise date, whether it was spring or autumn.
Q. Now, I first of all want to talk with you about the period of time when Mumenthey and Salpeter were co-managers. Did you have a chance during that period of time to form an impression of Mumenthey's activities?
A. Yes.
Q. What did Mumenthey do as compared to Salpeter's activities as a manager?
A. Mumenthey in the first period of time was Salpeter's right hand man, as you might call it. He did work for him, by his orders, and after 1941 he became the first manager of DEST.