Q. Who, apart from Mumenthey, was manager after the autumn of 1941?
A. After the autumn of '41?
Q. Yes, after Salpeter left, I mean?
A. At that time a man called Oberbeck, who had been working with Mumenthey, and he looked after the commercial side of the Brick Works.
Q. Was there not somebody else as a manager apart from Mumenthey since 1941?
A. Yes, Schondorf and myself.
Q. What were the tasks and how were they distributed between Mumenthey and your self and Schondorf as regards management?
A. Mumenthey was the firms first manager. He handled financial and economic matters, and he in some cases concluded contracts. Schondorf was a technician and was responsible for the Brick Works. Later on for the procellain factories in Allach and Bohemia. This was his sole responsibility. In that respect, he was not under Mumenthey. If any questions became acute, he was entitled to report to Pohl alone.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: I might have misunderstood the witness, but I understood the witness to say that after the autumn of 1941 when Salpeter went to the Army that Mumenthey became the manager. Well, now, is he describing some other manager subordinate to Mumenthey now or who had powers and duties on level with him?
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q. Witness, did you understand his Honor's question?
A. No.
Q. The Court has not formed a clear opinion as to whether Mumenthey since the autumn of 1941 was the sole manager or whether at his side and on the same level there were the other two managers whom you mentioned, yourself and Schondorf.
A. After 1941 Mumenthey was first managee, and I and Schondorf were at his side as co-managers.
Q. Please continue.
A. Schondorf was responsible in the technical sense for the Brick Works. Since June 1942 I became competent for the commercial direction of the granit Works. In particular, as I said before, when I described my development, selling, buying, transportation and contingents.
Q. Witness, since you had been with DEST every since 1938 surely you will be in a position to tell the court briefly how Salpeter, as manager, managed the firm at the time. What was his aim as the manager?
A. Under Arenz and Salpeter, DEST -- if I may put it this way -- was a soap bubble. By that I mean a building which was infalted and later on those two saw that. As from 40 and '41, people started to decentralize the plants. I remember that in '39 or '40 in the Main Administration there were about 140 employees, which was unlike the end when there were only 20 or 10 men and 10 women. The plants were given the order to reorganize themselves completely, to become independent. They were allowed to handle independently any matters pertaining to buying and selling. In Berlin, that is to say, the Main Administration of the firm, concerned itself only during the war when difficulties arose, supply questions and so forth.
Q. Witness, do you know that there were between Salpeter and the defendant Mumenthey strong conflicts because of the centralization which you mentioned of the economic power in Berlin?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. Please wait a moment with you answer until I finish my question.
Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What were Mumenthey's endeavors in 1940 and 1941 as far as Salpeter was concerned?
A. Mumenthey took the standpoint that it was entirely wrong to have this machine in Berlin and direct plants from there which you couldn't direct from Berlin. He therefore endeavored to have the works independent and give them more power.
Q. Was this to reenforce the business managers who were leading the plants on the spot?
A. Yes, that was the intention.
Q. Were any final orders issued in that respect?
A. Yes, it was carried out even. The plants became independent as from 1941, as I mentioned before, and it was planned even and later on in writing that the various plants should be completely independent with individual directors.
Q. Do you know that Mumenthey's plans went so far to have after the war transformed these plants into independent companies?
A. Yes, that was laid down fully in detail.
Q. Is it therefore correct that the working managers of the individual plants as early as 1941 to 1944 were responsible for the management of the local plants?
A. Yes.
Q Did that apply particularly to the question of labor allocation of inmates?
A. Of course.
Q. It was here for the first time that I used the term "allocation of inmates". Was there between DEST and any third party a legal relationship concerning the allocation of inmates?
A. The plants had decided and told the commandants of the con centration camps how many inmates they wanted.
The various categories, skilled or assistant skilled workers, were put at the disposal of the plants. Thereupon, payment was done also direct by the plants to the commandants, the administration. It was the same with other firms.
Q. Was there between the managements of the plants or DEST and the camps direct legal contact because of the inmates?
A. No.
Q. Were there such relationships between DEST and the Reich?
A. Not really. All that happened was that there were conferences with Office B-II with Standartenfuehrer Mauer. Whenever skilled workers were needed, particularly toward the end of the war, in order to attempt for this or that plant to have the suitable skilled workers.
Q. I feel that we have a gap here in your testimony. Was the local commandant of a concentration camp in a position to put the inmates at the disposal of the plant, just like that? Or was that done on the basis of regulations issued by higher authorities?
A. Yes, there were regulations by the chief of the WVHA that individual firms and the armament industries were to be given inmates for compensation.
Q. You just mentioned the WVHA. Is that statement of yours entirely correct? Did the WVHA have anything to do with the allocation of inmates? Or was it only an agency existing in the WVHA?
A. Yes, it was Office D-2.
Q. Therefore, we can say that allocation of inmates was ordered as a matter of principle by D-2., and, apart from that, of course, by some other authority under which D-2 was?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, let's talk about something else. You told the Court that you were the technical manager of what was known as the Granite Works of the DEST, later on --
A. No, I did not say that. I was not the technical manager. I was the commercial manager.
Q. Quite right, you were the commercial manager.
What type of enterprises were concentrated within the DEST?
A. Granite Works, brick works and, later on, the Porcelain companies, Allach and Bohemia.
Q. And the technical manager of the brick works was Schondorff, you said?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were the commercial manager of the quarries, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. As an expert in the stone processing industry, you are in an excellent position to give the court precise information as to the manner in which the quarries of the DEST were operated.
A. Yes, certainly.
Q. Just a moment, please. Before you do so, I should like to tell you what has become clear from the title so far. Two terms have become important in this trial, and they have been given a rather evil meaning. They are connected with the DEST. One is the term "quarry" and the other is the term of the "clay works." The last term is not very familiar to you, but I should like you to tell the Court briefly how generally the stone processing works used the quarries, what type of work had to be done there, and how, in particular, the DEST handled these things?
A. You have to make a difference between a quarry and a place where the granite is being processed. The quarry, in our case, was only a small part of our work; where as the granite works amounted to the bigger part of our work, about eighty percent. I shall explain briefly, as far as I am able to do that as a merchant, how work is done in a granite plant.
Q. Just a moment, witness, please. You make the modification just now that you were only a commercial expert. I should like to ask you: Did you personally see the quarries and stone processing works of the DEST, and did you gain your experiences on the basis of the enterprises there?
A. Yes.
Q. What works did you inspect?
A. St. Georgen, near Linz; Flossenbuerg, near Weiden; GrossRosen, in Silesia, near Striegau; Rothau, in Alsace.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q. Practically all of the granite quarries were located in the vicinity of a concentration, were they not?
A. Yes.
Q. And concentration inmates, particularly, were used in the stone quarries, were they not?
A. Yes.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q. Please describe to the Court what a quarry is like, and in particular what a DEST quarry was like?
A. Twice a day detonations are set off in a quarry. This was usually done at lunchtime and after work, in the evening, by civilian detonating experts who were given the corresponding training in these things. No accidents occurred in our enterprises when such work was done. As soon as the raw material had been released, it was processed by machines and loaded on trucks in order to have it transported by steam engines or Diesel engines to the stone processing workshops. There the stones were once again lifted by derricks from the trucks and deposited on the working site. The processing here was done by hand by means of instruments and tools.
After the work was completed, the material was taken to assembly points, and from there to the railway, to be loaded. I should like to emphasize here that in two of our enterprises there were even at the railway stations highly modern and very expensive derricks which lifted the heavy processed stones on the rail wagons.
Q. Were the enterprises, the quarries of the DEST, supervised by and inspected by experts; and, if so, how did these experts inform themselves of the technical aspects of the work?
What did they say about them?
A. Certainly, our works were made accessible to the private people. I recall here a Herr Reul, an important man in the granite industry in Germany, a man who was important. In my opinion we had no reason to deny private people access to our enterprises because what we produced and the way we worked should have been made accessible to everybody, in my opinion.
Industrialists of the granite branch were always full of praise about the way our plant was run and its modern facilities.
That can be explained also by the fact that a man who operates a small quarry cannot invest so much money and, therefore, has to work in the most primitive fashion. That did not apply to us because much of the material we were producing was needed; expense was of no account, and, therefore, engines and machines were bought which did the most difficult work.
Q. Witness, may I, in this connection, ask you something else? Is it true that in a quarry you go through two stages, as it were; one, the period of time when the quarry is being opened; and the stage which follows then, when it is exploited?
A. Yes, that is quite correct. The first stage is the preliminary stage and the second stage is the work itself.
Q. Is it true that the preliminary stage is, as a matter of course, a more difficult type of work?
A. Yes, it is more difficult because you have to do it by hand. In order to do that you cannot use machines, at least Germany has none.
Q. Did you have the opportunity to inspect quarries of other firms?
A. Certainly. I said so in my curriculum vitae. I worked in an enterprise connected with quaries for 19 years before I joined the WVHA. As a commercial expert I visited these enterprises all the time, but I may say here that these enterprises where I had worked until 1938 were not as up-to-date as the ones of the DEST.
Q. When a number of witnesses were examined here, it was said with an unpleasant implication the plant of Flossenbuerg and Gusen I, Gusen II or Mauthausen, quite generally.
You visited Flossenbuerg and Mauthausen, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it also correct that in Flossenbuerg --that is, in that small village on the Bavarian frontier -- there were not only quarries belonging to the DEST but also quarries which belonged to other private firms?
A. As far as I know, between Weiden and Floss, about eight to ten small firms were operating quarries.
Q. Now, one question which seems to me to be particularly important. Is it correct that in the Flossenbuerg plant and the concentration camp near it, there were also quarries?
A. Yes, there was a quarry in Flossenbuerg itself which was operated by the camp. As far as I know, the camp processed stones there which were needed for the buildings in the camp.
Q. Are you informed on the point of how it was possible that in a concentration camp a quarry was located? Or let me put it this way.... Did the camp expand gradually because of geological conditions there, with the result that quarries which were so frequent in that part of the world were now part of the camp?
A. No, that was not the case. As far as I know the camp wanted to save money and used the inmates skilled in that work. They left them in the camp and, in order to save money, processed the stones in the camp itself.
Q. I believe you misunderstood me, witness. What I wanted to ask you is this: It seems to me an odd fact that in a camp there should be a quarry. The purpose of a camp was to accommodate human beings.
A. Yes.
Q. And therefore one would not assume that a concentration camp is really the place where you would look for a quarry. Now, my question, therefore, is to ask whether it is correct that the camp of Flossenburg, because it was so large and expanded gradually, included quarries within its boundaries which earlier were not part of the camp.
A. I don't know.
Q. You don't know anything about that?
A. No.
Q. What about Mauthausen? Were there, apart from the DEST quarries, also quarries of other firms?
A. Yes, there was one quarry near the village of Mauthausen which belonged to the city of Vienna.
Q. Can you tell the Court anything about what is known as the Wiener Graben?
A. I myself went to Wiener Graben. It is situated near Mauthausen camp, roughly 600 or 800 meters from the Wiener Graben.
Q. Was that part of the DEST?
A. The Wiener Graben? Yes, it was a DEST enterprise.
Q. Another question, or, let me ask you this first: Is it correct that the plants of the DEST were, on the basis of provisions of law, made part of a certain type of enterprise which were under the Public Accident Insurance?
A. Yes, of course, just as any other firm, we had to belong to a professional organization, particularly to the quarries trade unions and we had to pay contributions just like any other firm. It is remarkable in this connection that we were regarded as a relatively safe enterprise and therefore had to pay less contributions. That was achieved in my opinion because the people of the quarries trade union on the basis of their inspection of our works found out that everything was in perfect condition and that above all accidents became well-nigh impossible.
Of course, we also belonged to the various professional organizations as a firm.
Q. Witness, are you informed about the fact as to what enterprises made up a work group in Auschwitz?
A. There were some stone works in Auschwitz with four automatically working dredging machines and they produced stones from the quarry. I also know that near Auschwitz there was a small stone processing works situated near Kielce. In 1943 Rupprecht, who was then the works manager, told us that he had to deliver large amounts of gravel to the Government General and he was therefore given a gravel pit near Treblinka where gravel was found. This enterprise had to be discontinued extremely soon because in Treblinka water conditions were so unfavorable that the engines could not be fed with water any more. Rupprecht therefore made an application, but the answer was negative, and therefore this enterprise having worked for three or four months was discontinued.
Q. Was there another works connected with the Auschwitz group?
A. Yes. I beg your pardon.
Q. Witschin?
A. Witschin? Yes, that was a small quarry also which was in operation for only a short period of time.
Q. In these works which you just mentioned - were there inmates employed?
A. Well, in the gravel pits in Auschwitz, but only from time to time a small special detachment of about 30 or 40 people was used. They were free workers, but in Kielce and the other works you just mentioned, as far as I know, a small number of inmates were employed.
Q. From what camps did these inmates come?
A. I don't know. I never visited these enterprises. I only went to Auschwitz once.
Q. Do you know, on the other hand, whether or not the DEST pur chased a clay pit or a sand pit in Auschwitz?
A. We never had anything of the sort in Auschwitz, not even a sand pit.
Q. You said something before about a question which I only wanted to put to you now. Do you know that the concentration camps in some cases had quarries in the camps or that at least they used quarries for their own purposes?
A. Yes, I know about that in the case of Flossenburg. I don't know anything about other enterprises.
Q. Witness, in the course of this trial reference has been made to a diamond cutting works in Herzogenbusch in Holland. Can you tell the Court anything about that plant, particularly as regards the fact whether the DEST had Herzogenbusch and inmate workers were alleged to be Jewish inmates.
A. I could give you a brief description. Roughly in 1943 Mummenthey received a letter and he was told in it that in Herzogenbusch there was a diamond cutting works. Since 1938 and 1940 the Reichsfuehrer Himmler had the intention of having war invalids working there in order to be trained as diamond cutters. The attempt was to be made to have these 38 or 40 machines set up in Herzogenbusch and to use them. In June of 1943 I was given the order to go to Bergen with Sommer and a man called Maier. I arrived there on a Sunday together with those two. We looked at the machines, as well as the workshop where the machines were to be set up. The machines were not actually put up in these halls. They were operated because we did not have sufficient raw material. Therefore, the whole matter amounted to nothing at all.
Q. Witness, towards the end of the war the DEST had about 20 or 22 plants under its orders, together with Bohemia and Allach which had become part of the organization. It was a small concern, so to speak, with wide dimensions. Did you ever hear of certain tendencies to expand the concern still further or do you know that Mummenthey opposed such tendencies of expansion, especially in the East?
A. As far as I know, no reference was made to further expansion. I, at least when I worked together with Mummenthey, discovered that he always disliked the East, or to put it more precisely, he never liked dealing with enterprises which were situated in the East.
Q. Before speaking about the chapter with which this Court is most concerned - labor conditions under which the inmates had to do their work - I should like to put one brief question to you, which again has acquired an unpleasant taste in this trial. That is the term "Reinhardt Fund". During your activity with the DEST did you come across that term?
A. The term is completely unknown to me. I don't know what it is supposed to mean.
Q. Witness, the prosecution has alleged that the DEST had as its purpose the extermination of inmates by working them to death. And the prosecution has particularly charged Mummenthey with this. I shall now, therefore, enter into the important complex of the case of how inmates were treated, how they worked, and what personal attitude Mummenthey took toward these things. Will you please tell the Court what sort of work the inmates did, the conditions under which they worked, and the conditions with regard to food, clothes, billets, etc., as far as you know from your own knowledge.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Froeschmann, this opens up a new subject which I think we can start tomorrow morning at 9:30. Court will recess until that time.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until 0930 tomorrow morning.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Oswald Pohl, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 31 July 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Robert M. Toms, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Take your seats, please.
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.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will indicate that the Defendants Bobermin and Klein are absent from this session of Court by leave of Court. The trial will proceed in their absence.
HEINZ GERHARD FRANZ SCHWARZ - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. FROESCHMANN: (For Defendant Mummenthey):
Q Witness, I remind you that you are still under oath. We stopped yesterday discussing the chapter, the work done by the inmates and the conditions under which they worked. I now want to ask you about the labor they did, the type of work they did, and please give the Court a brief but detailed picture about that. I shall now ask you to tell the Court what type of work these inmates did, (a) in the quarry, and (b) in the granite works.
THE PRESIDENT: This was at Flossenbuerg?
DR. FROESCHMANN: I wanted to have a general answer from the witness what type of work they did in all the plants, quite generally.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh.
A While I was a prisoner for about three-quarters of a year I worked in an American ammunition depot and did very heavy work. I can therefore judge what it means to a man who is unused to physical work to do heavy work. I myself find it more pleasant if I am interned and imprisoned and can do work rather than sit around without doing anything, because that demoralizes physically and mentally. I can, therefore, judge what effect the work had which was done in concentration camps or Court No. II, Case No. 4.the plants to which the inmates were transferred.
I need hardly say that for a man who formerly was unused to doing manual work, it is not easy to work in a granite plant, but I should like to emphasize briefly that the work in the quarry itself needed relatively few workers, whereas the work done in the processing shops needed more workers. I should like to point out briefly what was done in the DEST works and what they produced. These plants mainly processed stones for bridges, mainly for the Reichsautobahnen, the official highways. These processed stones were extremely valuable material, and the processing was done by hand. The work there is not strenuous as it is done only with a small hammer. The other building material such as stones for railroads and roads was always produced by mechanical processes. No manual work was carried out there. The work later on for the armament industries was also easy in my opinion.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Witness, we shall discuss that later on. You have not yet told us everything. I asked you what type of work did the inmates do in the quarries themselves, what manual work did they have to do?
A First, they had to uncover the quarry. That work, of course, had to -
Q Will you please repeat? What type of work was it that inmates did in the quarries?
A First of all they uncovered the earth layer above the stone. That was done by hand. Secondly, the stones were processed in order to be used for construction purposes in the processing work shops. Thirdly, the loading had to be done, and that on the whole finished the work of the inmates.
Q Witness, after the detonation, the material was lying around in the quarry. That is as I see it as a layman, and now the material had first of all to be shifted somewhere, is that correct?
A Yes, I assumed that I didn't have to give you the details there because I spoke in some detail yesterday, but if you wish me to, I can repeat it.
Q No, no, I don't want you to repeat anything. All that I wanted you to tell us was what the inmates actually did. In this case, they uncovered the stones and loaded the stones on the little trucks, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And then the material was shifted over to the actual processing work shops?
A Yes.
Q Now, I want you to tell us under what conditions the inmates did that work. Will you please tell us, first, about your impression of the physical conditions of the inmates, and you can tell the Court in which quarries and stone processing works you made your observations.
A Well, I worked in some and went to them once or twice a week, to the granite works and quarries, and on those occasions I formed an impression of the physical and mental condition of the workers. I need Court No. II, Case No. 4.hardly say that in war-time, the physical state and condition of the workers as well as those inmates working in the plants was not like it used to be in peace-time.
That was generally known because food was scarce everywhere. In summing up, I can say with a good conscience that I did not see that there was any radical or marked difference in the conditions. Of course, there was a small percentage everywhere of people who were not entirely in the full possession of their physical strength as they should have been; but that was a very small percentage which will be the case every where. There are people who do not stand up to physical work.
Q Witness, the Prosecution has asserted that the DEST used sick inmates in its quarries and granite works. I am not going to ask you now about whether you saw sick inmates at work, but I want to ask you first if the DEST in its managements issued orders about the employment of sick inmates who were not capable of doing work?
A The Defendant Mummenthey to my knowledge did, both in writing and orally, point out that the plants must only employ sound and healthy workers as you could not produce anything with sick inmates. This is entirely logical because the management of the DEST had to pay for its workers, and we could not have used sick inmates.
Q Did the managers give you any reports that perhaps by order of the local camp commandants, sick inmates were to be employed and that you sent back those sick inmates?
A The management frequently did not find it easy to send back sick inmates to the camp. Such cases came to my knowledge.
Q Witness, you said the general state of health in which you found the inmates was fairly normal, if you take war conditions into consideration, but you also admit that a certain percentage was below par, perhaps, physically. Did you ever have any experiences about the food and clothing of inmates?
A Yes. As a matter of principle, feeding and clothing and accommodation of inmates was not our task. Nevertheless, the managers continued to make efforts to obtain additional food as well as post-exchange Court No. II, Case No. 4.items, clothing, shoes and other goods which were extremely scarce towards the end, and they were issued to the workers at the expense of the management.
Q Could the plants do that so easily? I mean, get additional food and clothing during war-time?
A Certainly not. In war-time all such facilities were rationed, and only by virtue of their personal influence and under extreme difficulties it became possible to acquire these commodities. The people, of course, had made themselves punishable under the laws applying at the time.
Q Did Mummenthey know about that?
A Yes, of course, he endeavored himself to order these things.
Q If I understand you correctly, Mummenthey contrary to wartime regulations, and risking legal proceedings, made false statements for obtaining additional food and clothing and issued them to the inmates?
A Yes.
Q May I ask you in this connection, witness, what principle was followed in the quarries by the labor allocation of inmates? Was the position, as the Prosecution has asserted, that the inmates were to be worked to death, or were the other principles important, and if so, which ones?
A Extermination by working to death of inmates is out of the question because it wouldn't have made sense. The plants had to rely on their workers and concentrated their efforts mainly to have healthy and strong workers and not workers who would be dissipated by too much work.
Q Witness, do you know anything about the value attached to work done by inmates?
A Yes.
Q Did the work done by inmates reach the level of the work done by civilian workers?
A Certainly not, not by far.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q What is your explanation for that?
A Partly for mental reasons. They were separated from their families, and that is a hardship. Anybody who is a prisoner is depressed.
Q Are there perhaps also other factors, such as food, which the inmates received in their camps?
A Quite possibly.
Q Is it a fact of importance that inmates came from other professions and now had to do unaccustomed work?
A That also is entirely possible.
Q And may I in this connection put this question to you: Do you know whether this idea of efficient work done by inmates started the DEST to think about future allocation of inmates?
A The DEST had the plan that once some of the inmates were completely trained as skilled stone processing workers these people should, after their release, be employed in our enterprises as civilian workers.
Q How was that to be achieved?
A I don't know what you mean by that question. Could you put it another way?
Q What I want to know is, what method did the DEST think was suitable to have these workers later on become free workers, or to become more clear, the inmates came from a variety of professions, did they not? Now, they suddenly were used as stone masons and were trained as such. Did the DEST have the idea to train these workers as skilled workers in order to make them later on real skilled stone masons?
A Yes. I have stated before that, for instance, in the granite works of Gross-Rosen over one thousand inmates had graduated their course and could be regarded as real stone masons. Those inmates were to be released after the war and re-employed in the enterprises as civilian stone masons. We even toyed with the idea of transferring these inmates to other enterprises. May I point out in this connection that in the GrossRosen plant there was a current complement of 250 or 300 young men who were being trained as stone masons, who later on were sent to schools, Court No. II, Case No. 4.and then re-employed by the enterprises of the DEST as civilian foremen, engineers, technicians, and so forth.
