DUPONT: German. He was in detention. He was an SS man and Koch and he
were arrested at the same time. Owen was released and came back to
Buchenwald restored to his rank and his functions at the beginning of
1945. He was quite willing to talk to the prisoners and the information
that I have given comes from him.
M. DUBOST: I have no further questions to ask the witness, Mr.
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any member of the Defense Counsel wish to ask any
questions?
DR. MERKEL: I am the Defense Counsel for the Gestapo.
Witness, you previously stated that the methods of treatment in
Buchenwald were not peculiar to the Buchenwald Camp but must be ascribed
to a general order. The reasons you gave for this statement were that
you had seen those customs and methods in all the other camps too. How
am I to understand this expression “in all the other camps”?
DUPONT: I am speaking of concentration camps; to be precise, a certain
number of them, Mauthausen, Dachau, Sachsenhausen; labor squads such as
Dora, Laura, S III, Mansleben, Ebensee, to mention these only.
DR. MERKEL: Were you yourself in those camps?
DUPONT: I myself went to Buchenwald. I collected exact testimony about
the other camps from friends who were there. In any case, the number of
friends of mine who died is a sufficiently eloquent proof that
extermination was carried out in the same way in all the camps.
HERR BABEL: I should like to know to what block you belonged. Perhaps
you can tell the Tribunal—you have already mentioned the point—how the
prisoners were distributed? Did they not also bear certain external
markings, red patches on the clothing of some and green on that of
others?
DUPONT: There were in fact a number of badges, all of which were found
in the same Kommandos. To give an example, where I was—in the
“terrassekommando” known as “Entwässerung” (drainage)—I worked along
side of German “common-laws” wearing the green badge. Regarding the
nationalities in this Kommando, there were Russians, Czechs, Belgians,
and French. Our badges were different; our treatment was identical, and
in this particular case we were even commanded by “common-laws.”
HERR BABEL: I did not quite hear the beginning of your answer. I asked
whether the internees were divided into specific categories identifiable
externally by means of stars or some kind of distinguishing mark: green,
blue, _et cetera_?
DUPONT: I said that there were various badges in the camp, triangular
badges which applied in principle to different categories, but all the
men were mixed up together, and subjected to the same treatment.
HERR BABEL: I did not ask you about their treatment, but about the
distinctive badges.
DUPONT: For the French it was a badge in the form of a shield.
HERR BABEL: For all the prisoners, not only the French.
DUPONT: I am answering you. In the case of the French, who were those I
knew best, the red, political badge was given to everyone without
discrimination, including the prisoners brought over from Fort Barraut,
who were common-law criminals. I saw the same thing among the Czechs and
the Russians. It is true that the use of different badges had been
intended, but that was never put into practice in any reasonable way.
To come back to what I have already stated, even if there were different
badges, the people were all mixed up together, nevertheless, and
subjected exactly to the same treatment and the same conditions.
HERR BABEL: We have already heard several times that prisoners of
various nationalities were mixed up together. That is not what I asked
you. You were in the camp for a sufficiently long period to be able to
answer my question. How were these prisoners divided? As far as I know,
they were divided into criminal, political, and other groups, and each
group distinguished by a special sign worn on the clothing—green, blue,
red, or some other color.
DUPONT: The use of different badges for different categories had been
planned. These categories were mixed up together. “Criminals” were side
by side with prisoners classed as “political.” There were, however,
blocks in which one or another of those elements predominated; but they
were not divided up into specific groups distinguished by the particular
badge they wore.
HERR BABEL: I have been told, for instance, that political prisoners
wore blue badges and the criminals wore red ones. We have already had a
witness who confirmed this to a certain extent by stating that criminals
wore a green badge and asocial offenders a different badge and that the
category to which they belonged could be seen at a glance.
DUPONT: It is true that different badges existed. It is true that the
use of these badges for different categories was foreseen; but if I am
to confine myself to the truth, I must emphasize the fact that the full
use was not made of these badges. For the French, in particular, there
were only political badges; and this increased the confusion still more
since notorious criminals from the ordinary civil prisons were regarded
everywhere as political prisoners. The badges were intended to identify
the different existing categories, but they were not employed
systematically. They were not employed at all for the French prisoners.
HERR BABEL: If I understand you correctly, you say that all French
prisoners were classified as political prisoners?
DUPONT: That is correct.
HERR BABEL: Now, among these French prisoners, as you said yourself, is
it not true to say that there were not only political prisoners but also
a large proportion of criminals?
DUPONT: There were some among . . .
HERR BABEL: At least, I took your previous statement to mean that. You
said that quite definitely.
DUPONT: I did say so. I said that there were criminals from special
prisons who were not given the green badge with an F, which they should
have received, but the political badge.
HERR BABEL: What was your employment in the camp? You are a doctor, are
you not?
DUPONT: I arrived in January. For 3 months I was assigned first to the
quarry and then to the “terrasse.” After that I was assigned to the
Revier, that is to say the camp infirmary.
HERR BABEL: What were your duties there?
DUPONT: I was assigned to the ambulance service for internal diseases.
HERR BABEL: Were you able to act on your own initiative? What sort of
instructions did you receive regarding the treatment of patients?
DUPONT: We acted under the control of an SS doctor. We had a certain
number of beds for certain patients, in the proportion of one bed to 20
patients. We had practically no medical supplies. I worked in the
infirmary up to the liberation.
HERR BABEL: Did you receive instructions regarding the treatment of
patients? Were you told to look after them properly or were you given
instructions to administer treatment which would cause death?
DUPONT: As regards that, I was ordered to select the incurables for
extermination. I never carried out this order.
HERR BABEL: Were you told to select them for extermination? I did not
quite hear your reply. Will you please repeat it?
DUPONT: I was ordered to select those who were dangerously ill so that
they might be sent to Block 61 where they were to be exterminated. That
was the only order I received concerning the patients.
HERR BABEL: “Where were they to be exterminated?” I asked if you were
told that they were to be selected for extermination. Were you
told—“They will be sent to Block 61?” Were you also told what was to
happen to them in Block 61?
DUPONT: Block 61 was in charge of a noncommissioned officer called
Wilhelm, who personally supervised the executions; and it was he who
ordered what patients should be selected to be sent to that block. I
think the situation is sufficiently clear.
HERR BABEL: I beg your pardon. You were given no specific details?
DUPONT: The order to send the incurables . . .
HERR BABEL: Witness, it strikes me that you are not giving a
straightforward answer of “yes” or “no,” but that you persist in evading
the question.
DUPONT: It was said that these patients were to be sent to Block 61.
Nothing more was added but every patient sent to Block 61 was executed.
HERR BABEL: That is not first-hand observation. You found out or you
heard that those who were sent there did not come back.
DUPONT: That is not correct. I could see for myself, for I was the only
doctor who could enter Block 61, which was under the command of an
internee called Louis Cunish (or Remisch). I was able to get a few of
the patients out; the others died.
HERR BABEL: If such a thing was said to you, why did you not say that
you would not do it?
DUPONT: If I understand the question correctly, I am being asked why,
when I was told to send the most serious cases . . .
HERR BABEL: When you received instructions to select patients for Block
61 why did you not say, “I know what will happen to those people, and
therefore I will not do it.”
DUPONT: Because it would have meant death.
HERR BABEL: And what would it have meant if Germans had refused to carry
out such an order?
DUPONT: What Germans are you talking about? German internees?
HERR BABEL: A German doctor, if you like, or anyone else employed in the
hospital. What would have happened to him if he had received such an
order and refused to carry it out?
DUPONT: If an internee refused point-blank to execute such an order, it
meant death. In point of fact, we sometimes could evade such orders. I
emphasize the fact that I never sent anyone to Block 61.
HERR BABEL: I have one more general question to ask about conditions in
the camp. For those who have never seen a camp it is difficult to
imagine what conditions were actually like. Perhaps you could give the
Tribunal a short description of how the camp was arranged.
DUPONT: I think I have already spoken at sufficient length on the
organization of the camp. I should like to ask the President whether it
will serve any useful purpose to return to this subject.
THE PRESIDENT: I believe it is not necessary. [_To Herr Babel_] If you
want to put any particular cross-examination to him to show he is not
telling the truth, you can, but not to ask him for a general
description.
HERR BABEL: The camp consists of an inner site surrounded and secured by
barbed wire. The barracks in which the prisoners were housed were inside
this camp. How was this inner camp guarded?
THE PRESIDENT: Will you kindly put one question at a time? The question
you just put involves three or four different matters.
HERR BABEL: How was the part of the camp in which the living quarters
are situated, separated from the rest? What security measures were
taken?
DUPONT: The camp was a unified whole, cut off from the rest of the world
by an electrified barbed wire network.
HERR BABEL: Where were the guards?
DUPONT: The guards of the camp were in towers situated all around the
camp; they were stationed at the gate and they patrolled inside the camp
itself.
HERR BABEL: Inside the camp? Inside the barbed wire enclosure?
DUPONT: Obviously, inside the camp and inside the barracks, of course.
They had the right to go everywhere.
HERR BABEL: I have been informed that each separate barrack was under
the supervision of only one man, a German SS man or a member of some
other organization, that there were no other guards, that these guards
were not intended to act as guards but only to keep order, and that the
so-called Kapos, who were chosen from the ranks of the prisoners, had
the same authority as the guards and performed the duties of the guards.
It may have been different in Buchenwald. My information comes from
Dachau.
DUPONT: I have already answered all these questions in my statement by
saying that the camps were run by the SS in a manner which is common
knowledge and that in addition the SS employed the internees as
intermediaries in many instances. This was the case in Buchenwald and, I
suppose, in all the other concentration camps.
HERR BABEL: The answer to the question has again been highly evasive. I
shall not, however, pursue the matter any further, as in any case I
shall not receive a definite answer.
But I should like to put one further question: You stated in connection
with the facts you described that a professor, whose name I could not
understand through the earphones and who was, I believe, a professor of
your own, was housed in Block 58. You stated in connection with the
question of degradation that at first 300 people, I think, were housed
there and later on 1,200. Is that correct?
DUPONT: There were 1,200 men in Block 58 when I found Dr. Kindberg
there.
HERR BABEL: Yes. And if I understood you correctly, you said that in
this block there were not only Frenchmen, but also Russians, Poles,
Czechs, and Jews and that a state of degradation was caused not only
through the herding together of 1,200 people but also through the
intermingling of so many different nationalities.
DUPONT: I want to make it clear that the intermingling of elements
speaking a different language, men who are unable to understand each
other, is not a crime; but it was a pre-disposing factor which furthered
all the other measures employed to bring about a state of human
degradation among the prisoners.
HERR BABEL: So you consider that the intermingling of Frenchmen,
Russians, Poles, Czechs, and Jews is a degradation?
DUPONT: I do not see the point of this question. The fact of
intermingling . . .
HERR BABEL: There is no need for you to see the point; I know why I am
asking the question.
DUPONT: The fact of putting men who speak different languages together
is not degrading. I did not either think or say such a thing; but the
herding together of elements which differ from each other in every
respect and especially in that of language, in itself made living
conditions more difficult, and paved the way for the application of
other measures which I have already described at length and whose final
aim was the degradation of the human being.
HERR BABEL: I cannot understand why the necessity of associating with
people whose language one does not understand should be degrading.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Babel, he has given his answer, that he considers it
tended to degradation. It does not matter whether you understand it or
not.
HERR BABEL: Mr. President, the transmission through the earphones is
sometimes so imperfect that I, at least, often cannot hear exactly what
the witness says and for that reason I have unfortunately been compelled
to have an answer repeated from time to time.
M. DUBOST: I should not like the Tribunal to mistake this interpolation
for an interruption of the cross-examination; but I think I must say
that some confusion was undoubtedly created in the mind of the Defense
Counsel just now in consequence of an interpreter’s error which has been
brought to my notice.
He asked my witness an insidious question, namely, whether the French
deportees were criminals for the most part, and the question was
interpreted as follows: whether the French deportees were criminals. The
witness answered the question as translated into French and not as asked
in German. I therefore request that the question be put once more by the
Defense Counsel and correctly translated.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you understand what Mr. Dubost said, Dr. Babel?
HERR BABEL: I think I understand the substance. I think I understand
that there was a mistake in the translation. I am not in a position to
judge; I cannot follow both the French and German text.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the best course is to continue your
cross-examination, if you have any more questions to ask, and Mr. Dubost
can clear up the difficulty in re-examination.
HERR BABEL: Mr. President, the Defense Counsel for Kaltenbrunner has
already explained today that it is very difficult for the Defense to
cross-examine a witness without being informed at least one day before
as to the subjects on which the witness is to be heard. The testimony
given by today’s witnesses was so voluminous that it is impossible for
me to follow it without previous preparation and to prepare and conduct
from brief notes the extensive cross-examinations which are necessary.
To my knowledge, the President has already informed Defense Counsel for
the organizations that we shall have an opportunity of re-examining the
witnesses later or of calling them on our own behalf.
THE PRESIDENT: I have already said what I have to say on behalf of the
Tribunal on that point, but as Counsel for the Defense must have
anticipated that witnesses would be called as to the conditions in the
concentration camps, I should have thought they could have prepared
their cross-examination during the 40 or more days during which the
Trial has taken place.
HERR BABEL: Mr. President, I do not think that this is the proper time
for me to argue the matter with the Tribunal, but I may perhaps be given
the opportunity of doing so later in a closed session. I consider this
necessary in the interests of the rapid and unhampered progress of the
Trial.
I have no desire whatsoever to delay the proceedings. I have the
greatest interest in expediting them as far as possible, but I am
anxious not to do so at the cost of prejudicing the defense of the
organizations.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Babel, I have already pointed out to you that you
must have anticipated that the witnesses might be called to state the
conditions in concentration camps. You must therefore have had full
opportunity during the days the Trial has taken place for making up your
mind on what points you would cross-examine, and I see no reason to
discuss the matter with you.
HERR BABEL: Thank you for this information. But naturally I cannot know
in advance exactly what the witness is going to say, and I cannot
cross-examine him until I have heard him. I know, of course, that a
witness is going to make a statement about concentration camps but I
cannot know in advance which particular points he will discuss.
M. DUBOST: I would ask the Tribunal to note that in questioning the
French witness the Defense used certain words the literal translation of
which is “for the most part.” This applied to the character of the
French deportees. The question was, “Were they criminals for the most
part?” The witness understood it to be as I did: “Did you say that they
were criminals?” and not “that the convoys were for the most part
composed of criminals.” His reply was the natural one. The Tribunal will
allow me to ask the witness to give details. What was the proportion of
common-law criminals and patriots respectively among the deportees? Was
he himself a common-law criminal or a patriot? Were the generals and
other personalities whose names he has given us common-law criminals or
patriots, speaking generally?
DUPONT: The proportion of French common-law criminals was very small.
The common-law criminals came from Fort Barraut in a convoy. I cannot
give the exact figures, but there were only a few hundred out of all the
internees. In other incoming convoys the proportion of common-law
criminals included was only 2 or 3 per thousand.