 |
Q. Who was the representative in Mulhouse?
A. Excuse me, Mr.
Mandellaub, I was thinking of Paris. In Mulhouse, our motor vehicle department
had been installed in the ELMAG plant; the managers were, first of all,
Habermaas and Roth. Later on when Roth was thrown out by the Party, his
successor was Mr.----- I can’t remember his name.
Q. To whom was
Habermaas subordinated?
A. He was subordinated immediately to the
Directorate, that is, in Dr. Loeser’s time; then after the changes were
made in the Directorate, in autumn, 1943, Eberhardt, as commercial head of all
[Krupp] machine factories, was made the superior of Habermaas.
Q. Is it
true that until Loeser left, Habermaas’ direct superior was Loeser?
A. Yes.
Q. Was he responsible to him?
A. Yes.
Q. After Loeser left, Eberhardt became his boss?
A. Yes.
Q. Habermass’ activities fell then within Eberhardt’s sphere
of responsibility after Loeser left?
A. Yes. |
| |
| * * * * * |
| |
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
DR. SCHILF (counsel for the
defendant Janssen) : First I should like to give you an opportunity to say what
you wanted to say about the Liancourt letter, regarding which you expressed the
wish to give an explanation. I assume that this is the same letter that I
submitted to you yesterday? A letter from you to Habermaas?
WITNESS
SCHROEDER: No, this is the letter I wrote to Habermaas in which I quoted Mr.
von Bohlen, and what I wanted to explain to Mr. Mandellaub was that it is a
quite similar matter as in the case of the letter in which I quoted Eberhardt
and Janssen. I simply wanted to give further weight to my opinion by quoting
colleagues or superiors. I have no idea whether I had any orders to this effect
from Mr. von Bohlen. I don't think so. But if I quoted Mr. von Bohlen, my
instructions would be more effective.
Q. And these instructions —
what were they?
A. They were that this factory, which could employ
about 300 men and at which only a hundred were working at the time, should be
given further orders from Puteaux, because I feared |
583 |
. 
