Now, today I assume that this order applied also, for example, to Norwegian prisoners and the property which was existing at the death of the prisoner. This could be turned over to his relatives in Norway.
Q. I understand that, yes, perfectly. Then the order does not apply entirely to SS-men who were in prison, but as to all prisoners except Polish, Jewish and Soviets?
A. Your Honor, this order first of all refers to all prisoners in penal institutions, the property of these prisoners. Only the property of the Jews, and of the Poles was not to be turned over to their relatives.
Q. And the Russians?
A. And the Russians, yes.
Q. Surely, now my misunderstanding came from your having said this order was to apply, as I thought, you said only to the SS prisoners. You did not mean that?
A. Your Honor, that was a misunderstanding.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, I think some misunderstanding may arise from the fact that the witness has said "Haeftlinge" and that it is being translated "prisoner." I think ordinarily that is translated as "Inmate" which may clear up the picture some. When he said "Haeftlinge" he is not talking about prisoners of war but inmates of concentration camps.
BY DR. RAUSCHENBACH:
Q. At the time when the Reich order was issued about the treatment of property of members and their relatives, or the inhabitants, at the time the order of the Polish State was discussed previously, in 1940, and at the time of the issuance of orders by the RSHA of 1941, did you concern yourself already at that time with these things, and did the WVHA exist at that time?
A. No, as I had already explained yesterday, and as I would like to say once more, the WVHA and its predecessor, had nothing to do whatever with the seizure or utilization of property which was owned by the Jews. It had nothing to do with it at all.
Q. I now come to the third document which was also signed by you. It is located in the English Document Book on page 135. This document is NO-2003, Exhibit No. 480, in Document Book 18. Witness, what was the reason for this letter which was sent to Himmler in 13 May 1943, which has been provided with your signature?
A. I can not give you the reason for it today. However, I assume that this is a notification addressed to Amtsgruppe-D, about how many watches were turned in, and how many of these watches were repaired.
Q. Well, the order referred to other objects?
A. Yes, it also referred to other objects. I have already previously stated that this letter is the first letter and the only letter which gives any notification of the amount as result of the action.
Q. In connection with Document 472, you have expressed just how you explain the origin of these watches. Will you please give us your point of view once more, even though this document shows very much in detail just what other objects were also included. Didn't it come to your attention particularly that 25,000 fountain pens and also been turned in, and 7,500 safety razors and so on. What did you think about that at the time?
A. Yes, of course, that drew my attention, and at the time sofar as I can remember I made inquiry about these of Amtsgruppe-D. Sofar as I can recall I was informed that they had many objects which had newly been produced in the factories, and for example, the supply of razor blades, and of razors.
Q. Witness, I believe the translation was read wrong to that question. You don't want to say that these razors blades were produced in the camps?
A. No, this was something which if had been provided for the camp could not be goods from the camp, because otherwise it could not be served to the post exchange. I explained by the fact that the watches and razors had been produced by hand which had been served in this way to the post exchange, but I believe that these razors must have been produced by the factories. It was also shown, for example, that these were new razors, and it is shown by the paragraph four-thousand new razors were distributed to the SS hospitals.
Q. How do you explain, for example, the existence of stamp collections?
A. In particular the stamp collections seem to prove the fact that this was not the property of the inmates, which they carried with them. I could not imagine that a man would be permitted to have, or would carry his stamp collection along with him, that would have been rather unusual.
Q. You could nut assume, for example, that an owner of this stamp collection had been killed in a camp?
A. I not only would not know but I can not even assume that the owner was in camp at all, that was rather unquestionable.
Q. Do you know what was then done with the things?
A. No, I did not see the reply to this letter; and, as is shown by the documents which the prosecution submitted subsequently in the examination of Pohl, I was able to see that the reply only arrived in November or December. This was the reply from the Reichsfuehrer.
However, I would like to make a statement with regard to the watches. I can remember that these watches, which were to be distributed to the Waffen SS, were not to be distributed without any charge being made for them. The units were suffering from an extreme lack of watches, and there was no reason whatsoever to just make a present of these watches to the men. I can still recall that we of the Waffen SS Administration even through of turning them over to the men against payment. It was well known that a soldier at the front had enough money at his disposal; he was not even able to spend his money and he would have liked very much to pay thirty or fifty marks if he had been able to purchase a watche with it.
Q. Witness, I believe that we are not so much interested in connection with this question as to whether the soldier was able to buy the watches, because the prisoners from whom the watches were taken certainly did not get any refunds for them.
A. No, of course not; they were taken away from the inmates.
Q. Witness, I now have several questions with regard to document NO-1567; this is Exhibit 8.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Just before you leave this last document, I want to ask one question of the witness. He assumed that many of these articles had been originally manufactured, but doesn't the title of the document itself indicate the origin of all the items? Because the subject of the letter is "Utilization of Stolen Jewish Articles", or something of that nature; I don't have the document directly before me.
BY JUDGE MUSMANNO:
Q. Didn't you know, witness, all the time, that these goods were taken from Jews? Your very letter indicates that in the subject heading.
A. It is the same title, the same expression which was used in the document of October 1942.
A. It is exactly the same expression.
A. I assume that this subject reference is used here because Himmler at that time ordered that in all orders of this nature this subject reference should be used. I have already stated that I could not explain to myself just what had caused the Reichsfuehrer to choose this expression However, it was an expression of camouflage which Himmler chose by himself, and which I had to use.
Q. But there was no doubt in your mind that these articles were taken from Jews, was there?
A. There was no doubt whatsoever about that.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Thank you.
BY DR. RAUSCHENBACH:
Q. In document book I we have Exhibit 8, which is document NO-1567. It is on page 31 of the English document book. This is affidavit by the defendant Vogt.
Is it correct, witness, as the defendant Pohl has stated, that the order for the examination of the local treasury at Lublin originated with Pohl?
Q. When was this?
A. That must have been in June of 1943 when he issued the order to examine and audit the local treasury at Lublin.
Q. Was it unusual for a chief of a main chief office to order the audit and examination of a treasury?
A. Yes, it was very unusual. Something like this was only done when there was a suspicion of embezzlement or an irregularity.
Q. And you yourself sent Vogt to carry out the audit at Lublin?
Q. Did you know that the real reason for the audit was the examination and audit of the Reinhardt account?
A. No, I did not know that before the audit was carried out. In order to explain this matter to the Tribunal I must say that the local treasury at Lublin was a treasury of the Reich, and that all troops and units of the Waffen SS which were stationed at Lublin and in the vicinity were provided with funds by this treasury. The man who was in charge of this treasury was, at the same time, used by Globocnik for his special orders, that is, the utilization of the property of Jews.
Q. When did you receive knowledge, in the audit which was carried out at Lublin, that it was the auditing of the Reinhardt treasury?
A. As I have already stated in my affidavit, I received this knowledge after Vogt returned. In June of 1943, when Vogt returned from Lublin, I knew that I would change my position; I was already prepared to turn over my office to somebody else, and I was ready to take over my new assignment. At that time I did not place any emphasis on it to ask Vogt about the exact results of the audit and examination. As far as I can recall, he gave me a short written report at the time in which he pointed out and hinted that no suspicion of embezzlement existed against the man in charge of the treasury, and that in this treasury he had discovered a special account in the name of Reinhardt which contained considerable amounts of foreign exchange which had passed through that account. However, I cannot recall exactly whether he told me that personally or whether it was contained in his report. When he submitted the report I had a conversation with him for several minutes. I turned the report itself over to Pohl. The report did not contain any exact and precise figures; I know that for certain.
Q. Therefore, it did not show any balance of the Reinhardt account?
A. No. As far as I can recall, Vogt told me at the time that within the short period of time in which he carried out the audit-- I believe he spent only one or two days at Lublin--he was unable to carry out an exact examination, and that he was going to have all the necessary documents sent to his office at Berlin.
I don't know if that was actually done.
Q. Didn't you, later on, ever see a balance of the objects which went to the treasury at Lublin during the Action Reinhardt?
A. No. As I have already explained, several weeks after the examination was carried out by Vogt I left the WVHA and had nothing further to do with all these matters, and I did not receive subsequent information about them. I don't know either to what extent Vogt continued the audit, if he continued it. As to whether he had the documents sent to his office afterwards or if they were sent to Pohl, I cannot make any statements about that from my own knowledge.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Your Honor, I intend to come to a new subject now, which will take some time, that is, the credit of RM 30,000,000 to the DWB. I think perhaps it would be appropriate to call a recess at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours)
AFTERNOON SESSION The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 6 June, 1947.)
AUGUST FRANK----Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, before your counsel starts again---you made a statement yesterday that I would like to ask one question about. You said I suppose the State has the right to protect itself against its enemies by locking them up. Do you remember that?
A. Yes, indeed, Your Honor; that was in connection with the basic establishment of concentration camps.
Q. That is right. Do you think the State has the right to lock up a person merely for a difference of opinion without a chance to be heard or to defend himself, and simply because some policeman thinks he is an enemy; and to keep him locked up for years?
A. No, Your Honor, I am not of that opinion. It is natural that if a man is sent to a concentration camp he has the right to know why he is being locked up, what he is being charged with, and how long he will stay locked up. That is something absolutely natural which I wanted to state here.
Q. And he also has the right to have some one prove he is an enemy, don't you think?
A. Why, of course.
Q. Not to simply have a policeman come up to him and say you are an enemy, go to the concentration camp.
A. No, Your Honor. I believe there exist many wrong ideas about us, generally speaking. For instance, my last rank was SS-Obergruppenfuehrer. I could arrest nobody on the street; I never did that in my life.
Q. You are assuming too much. I am just talking about the Gestapo plan, not the SS plan, as it was done here in Germany. Isn't it-
A. Your Honor, I believe that if the Gestapo ever arrested a man in the street, then there must have been some sort of a suspicion about him, that his activities were against the state, or he had a warrant of arrest against him.
Q. Well, you are right, that all there was, was a suspicion. We have had witnesses sitting where you are who were sent to concentration camps without hearing, without trial, merely because the Gestapo suspected them. Do you agree with that?
A. No, Your Honor, I don't. You see, let's not forget that thousands of inmates were released after it had been found out that they had been locked up without justification. There were several thousands of them.
Q. And while they were being proven innocent, they remained in prison.
A. No, if it was found out that they were not guilty and if they were not released, then there was some sort of mistake.
Q. That is exactly what I mean.
A. Your Honor, a few days ago I read in a British newspaper that Austria has again established concentration camps, and there is a sentence in which it is stated exactly that no trial is necessary, and that it is sufficient if it has been found out that the individual is an enemy of the state. In other words, exactly the same things we are being charged with.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, two wrongs don't make a right. It's just as wrong in Austria today as it was in Germany in 1940. You see, we Americans simply can't understand that sort of thing. In America, if a man was suspected and there is some reason to suspect him, he can be arrested. But immediately, he has a chance either to be heard or to be let out on bail, if you know what I mean--immediately. We don't throw men in prison and then take six months to find out that they are innocent. We have to prove that they are guilty first before they are sent to prison. That is why I am asking you these question because it's so difficult for us to understand that kind of philosophy.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I believe that. I have had associations which lasted for over 25 years with Americans and I know that it works the way as you told us in America. But, Your Honor, I don't believe that you can compare German conditions with American conditions. A fortunate and rich people like the American people does not have to follow the same procedure like the Germans. The German people in such a case had to use more forcible methods because at the time, the conditions were very hard and several mistakes were made. I shall admit that gladly. Maybe the system was wrong. I shall admit that, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. If we have persuaded you that the system was wrong, we have done a good deal. That is one of the things we wanted to do, to try to show you that individual rights and liberty are the most important things in the world.
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. That is quite a principle. I agree with that principle one hundred per cent. I admit that we committed horrible mistakes and that is the reason why we are paying for it today so heavily.
Q. Well, if I could just get 50 million other people to say what you have just said, I should be very happy. I am not going to plan to do that. That is a little bit larger task than I will undertake.
BY DR. RAUSCHENBACH:
Q. Witness, about this 30 million credit to the DWB, is it correct that the DWB in the summer of 1943 received a Reich credit of 30 million marks?
A. That is correct.
Q. Part of that credit, was that credit removed from account No. 1288?
A. Yes, 12 millions according to my recollection.
Q. In Document Book No. 18, on Page 148 of the German and 141 of the English text, we have Exhibit No. 448 of Document 554. That is also in Document Book No. 17, on Page 33 of the German. This document deals with the credit to the Schutzstaffel, or protective squads of the SS. According to that, the first part was used in order to pay back a debt, a Red Cross debt, is that correct? Do you have the document book before you?
A. Yes, I have to go into details about this document because my name is mentioned there. I do not want to bore this Tribunal with this matter, however. It deals with a loan of 8 million marks which the Red Cross, as far as I can recall had granted to the SS in 1939. At the time I had nothing to do with this transaction. Why that credit was granted to the SS and why this credit took such a detour through the savings account of the SS, I could not tell you today. The SS Savings Association was an institution which had been established by the Reichsfuehrer where all the SS units, which were a part of the main office, had to pay part of their salaries to that particular Treasury. When I became chief of Amtsgruppe A, this saving association was included in my field of tasks, and there I found this credit which, came from the Red Cross, and I found that they had gone through the saving group association accounts and from these particular saving group association accounts it was turned over to the DWB.
In June 1943, I had conferences with Pohl about it and I asked him to correct this mistake because it did not appear correct to me that such an association should possibly be charged with such a credit. Pohl told me at the time, "Frank, I cannot possibly remove this credit from my W-Industries.
It is part of the capital of the industry. If you want to do that, you have to give me eight millions from the Treasury of the Reich." And it was on that occasion that Pohl furthermore told me that he urgently needed additional funds for the execution of the Reich armament tasks.
That was the reason for the thirty million credit which developed out of this matter. It was a Reich credit. There was no doubt about the fact that it had to be paid back sometime to the Reich and we always had to pay interest for it. Why at the time I removed part of the credit from the special account 1288, which had also become Reich money by that time, I do not even know today. However, as far as I can recall, shortly before I resigned from my position in the main office, I had this money transferred to account 1288 by transferring it from one account to the other.
Q. About those eight millions which came out of this Document No-554, were they used to pay the credit for the Red Cross?
A. Yes, that can be seen from the document clearly.
Q. How was it then that this credit received the name "Reinhardt Fund"?
A. Because as I already stated, the first two installment payments were withdrawn from account 1288.
Q. Then the eight million marks out of the thirty million credit were no longer withdrawn from the Reinhardt account?
A. No, they were taken out of the current budget funds of the Reich.
Q. Then the first twelve million could have been taken from the current budget, couldn't they?
A. Yes, that is correct. I already told you that I don't know why this 12 million were withdrawn from that account.
Q. However, there must have been some sort of a reason why the original money was withdrawn from the funds which had been placed aside and not from the current Reich funds?
A. Well, to make it a short story, around the same time representatives of the O STI appeared in my office, and they asked me if they could possibly receive a credit of two and one-half million marks in order to take care of certain armament matters. Originally, these two and one-half were also to be withdrawn from account 1288. I looked at the special requisition slips at the O sti and I saw that those were purely armament matters, not for the SS but for the Army itself. There upon, I visited an expert of the Army administration and I asked him if he could not possible put two and one-half million marks at the disposal of the people who come to see me from his own treasury. He did not exactly refuse to do so, but he was surprised because he said, "Why don't you?" And that was the reason why I gave the money. When I later on became Chief of the Army Administration, I told myself that the Army was giving hundreds of millions of credits to armament firms. In Department for Rearmament in the Army, over one billion was spent for armament industry.
Q. You say that this particular sum of twelve million consisted of Reich funds.
I mean those twelve million which came from Jewish property. However, I can't help thinking that these twelve million, practically speaking, were to be credited to the account of the SS economy.
A You mean they were embezzled actually, is that what you mean?
A No, that could not have been the case, because then the whole thing would have been started in a very stupid manner. If we had merely wanted to embezzle that and transfer the money to the economy, then we would have started in some other way. However, in this way these amounts went entirely through the cash books, and they went through the books of the economists. They were subjected to the inspection of the auditing court, and there was no doubt that all these funds were purely Reich funds. That the origin of the money is based upon the property of the Jews, I will admit openly. However, this does not change anything in the fact that at that particular moment when the money was taken into the Reich Treasury it became Reich property.
Q I shall now come back to Account 1288, the so-called Reinhardt Fund. You said that the funds became Reich property, the moment they were taken into the Reich Treasury. However, these confiscated funds of the inmates somehow represented an enrichment for the SS budget and therefore the SS had more funds, or do I understand you wrong?
A For the layman that is precisely the way it looks. In this connection I would like to mention also the pay, the wages for the inmates. By that I mean those particular funds which the Reich received from the industries for supplies for the inmates, that is to say, lodging, clothing, and for their food. Those funds, just like all the other funds which came into the Reich Treasury were no profits for the Waffen-SS or for the SS generally speaking.
Q Yes, but the Waffen-SS could spend more, therefore it did have a profit?
A No, it only looks that way. The budget of the Waffen-SS was a budget which was independent as to income and expenditures. That is to say as a budget chief I was not interested in budgeting the income. I could not spend one single pfennig more or less than what had come in or gone out.
Whatever came into the Reich Treasury became an income or a revenue of the Reich, and what we spent we received from the Ministry of Finance. In other words, we could not say that in January we shall spend fifty million marks more than before because we had an income of fifty million. If I shall use a commercial expression, it was not a so-called balanced budget like for instance the postal system or the railroads. Those were Reich institutions, the expenses of which depended on the revenues or the income. Is that clear?
Q I hope that the Tribunal has understood this matter. However, in order to make sure, I would rather mention something else in this connection. That is in connection with the fact, as you know yourself, that in America the question of financing plays a larger part than it played with us. You already mentioned during your examination by this Tribunal, when you were examined about the supply of food, that the money was not the important factor here but the raw materials and that also speaking from a budgetary point of view you told us that the expenses of a certain institution, like the Waffen SS for instance, did not depend at all on the income. Can you tell us about that a little more explicitly?
A I can tell you about it in two short sentences. In peacetime it was exactly determined what we were to spend, that is down to the pfennig, and during the war we spent whatever we needed for the war effort, that is to say without any consideration of the amount. The Finance Ministry would mean under those expenses. However, he could not possibly change things because the war effort required those expenses, and he had to give us the money, because how was he to control the establishment of a 275th division or know that a 257th division was necessary. After all, he could not tell Hitler, "You are not to set up another division. I do not have any more money." That was the reason why he didn't have any influence during the war on the expenditures.
THE PRESIDENT: See if I understand it right. The SS, including the industries, did not have to be self-supporting or self-sustaining?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, you used the word "industries". That disturbs me somewhat.
THE PRESIDENT: I will withdraw it. I will withdraw the word "industries". The SS, for example, in all its activities, did not have to pay its own way?
THE WITNESS: That is quite right, you understood it correctly, Your Honor , that is exactly the way it was.
Q (By Dr. Rauschenbach) About this credit amounting to two and a half million marks to the OSTI, I am going to ask you a few questions. Take Document Book No. 19 , please, Exhibit 483, and Exhibit 484, documents NO-1266 and 1269.
A Yes, I have that.
Q Now, how did this credit come about?
A I have already stated that these credits were based on a request by the OSTI with me, and they were given by me. First of all they were to be withdrawn from Account 1288. However, they were taken out of the normal Reich funds later on. I believe that can be proved, because in Exhibit 483 - forgive me, I mean in Document 1271, that is the balance of the OSTI, dated the 29th of February, 1944.
Q That is Exhibit 491, isn't it?
A Yes, 491.
Q In Document Book No. 19.
A On page 28 of the German, paragraph 15 it explicitly refers to the Account Reich is mentioned there, not Reinhardt and from this same paragraph 15 it can be seen that the credits were already repaid by the 20th of May, 1944, up to half, in other words, at the time when I was no longer in the WVHA.
Q How is it then that in Exhibit 483 in the file note of 26 June 1943 the context is mentioned, "Loan from the Reinhardt funds"?
A Because as I already said it was to be withdrawn from the Reinhardt funds originally. However, I refused that. In other words, I had nothing else to do with the OSTI, than to help here for those particular credits which we thought necessary for the execution of the armament tasks.
Q Witness, today in a different connection you had already mentioned that you, in the summer of 1943, tried and finally succeeded in joining the regular police as an Administrative Chief. What was your activity there, and when did your activity begin?
A Well, sir, on the 1st of September 1943, I was appointed by the representative of the State Ministry of the Interior as the Administrative Chief of Police. Thus I was in charge of approximately two hundred police districts and their directors, including the Special Tasks, which I have already mentioned before, namely criminal police, food police, market police, and all the controls as far as the population was concerned, and all the contacts with these agencies were rather incomplete.
Q Witness, you were still under orders, weren't you; as far as the Reich was concerned you were still the Chief of Amtsgruppe A, weren't you? Did you carry out your activity as Chief of Amtsgruppe A besides your activity with the police?
A No, that was not possible because this new task kept me quite busy. However, together with the menior chief in Amtsgruppe A, the man who as year later became the Chief of Amtsgruppe A, I had quite often discussions about personnel questions, and I answered questions which he, due to his lack of knowledge, could not solve.
Q In other words, they were simply troop administrative questions?
A Yes, they were troop administrative questions which I had gathered after a long experience in the army, and I could not possibly forget it overnight.
Q Did you remain the Chief of the Administration of the Regular Police until the end of the war, or did you join another agency prior to that?
A No. On the 1st of September, 1944, I received the additional task of being the Chief of Army Administration. On the 1st of October, 1944, I was officially promoted to Chief of the Army Administration, and I became Obergruppenfuehrer General. That position was that of a commanding general also, as my predecessor was also a commanding general.
Q. What were the reasons that you, as an SS general, should be placed at the head of an administrative agency although that agency consisted of nothing but army people?
A. The reason probably was that Himmler, in the autumn of 1944, became the chief of the Army Replacement System.
Q. And who was your military superior as chief of the army administration?
A. The chief of the staff of the high command of the army. Then I had another chief who was the chief of the high command of the Wehrmacht.
Q. What was your relationship to the commanding chief of the Wehrmacht?
A. The administrative officer of the army was responsible for the food supply of the entire German frontline army; both for the Air Corps, for the Navy, the Organization Todt, the Red Cross units, for the Waffen SS, and to be short, for the entire frontline group. In that connection I was subordinated to the chief of the high command of the Wehrmacht directly. I had two conferences with Himmler on this basis.
Q. Apart from these Wehrmacht supply warehouses, were any other Wehrmacht depots transferred to you and were any orders issued on that basis?
A. Yes, in February 1945 I made an open statement to Adolf Hitler about the food situation of the German Wehrmacht. The Russians had broken though, the Allies had broken through, and without making a secret out of the whole thing I told Hitler that it was time now to end the war. Keitel was absolutely disappointed by my statement and Himmler was mute, and he released me without making a single comment, so that I was under the impression that everything was all right. A witness of that conference was State Secretary Backe; he was Food Minister at the time. I took him along to see the Fuehrer, and he, in his field as the civilian food administration, told the Fuehrer the same thing.
And to my surprise on the 14th of March, 1945, I received an order by Adolf Hitler which was signed by him personally, in which I was assigned to take charge of all the army supply warehouses all over Germany and on the front lines. In other words, not only food warehouses but all the other quartermaster warehouses, food supply warehouses, and supply warehouses, etc.
Q. Witness, do you know anything about the fact that Himmler in March also ordered the "scorched earth" policy to be used?
A. Yes, on the 20th of March, 1945, I received from an ordnance officer from headquarters a letter which I had to sign for personally. In this letter it was stated that if the enemy should approach, or if the enemy should be close, everything was to be destroyed, anything that could be of use to the enemy. I was to blow up all the warehouses which belonged to the German Wehrmacht as soon as the enemy was approaching.
Q. What did you do upon receiving such orders?
A. Prior to that a different order had already been issued about the blowing-up of installations, if the enemy should approach. This order, which I mentioned before, of the 19th of March, was the so-called "scorched earth" decree. I do not recall the exact date when I received a telephone call from the Reich Minister of Armaments Speer. He was on the phone himself, and he begged me to come and see him at his private home. I had that conference with him and he asked me if I felt like carrying out this order of the Fuehrer - at least in my field of tasks. I told him that I did not think of doing such a thing because this was an insane order, and that I completely agreed with him as far as sabotaging this order was concerned. I sent to all warehouse chiefs I could reach a special order that all these warehouses were to be transferred to the civilian authorities, to the mayors, or if possible they should be transferred to the rear areas.
Q. Witness, with this special term didn't you mean the execution of the special order which was sent to you by your higher superior?
Didn't you refuse to carry out this order?
A. Yes, undoubtedly. I knew exactly that I was risking my head with that because it was sabotage of the highest Fuehrer order.
Q. How many of your supplies do you think remained after the end of the war for the population of Germany?
A. It is very difficult for me to state today, as I have no documentary evidence to that effect. However, as far as food alone was concerned, I guess that there was over one million tons which remained for the German population, and several other hundred thousand of tons of the most important goods. I believe that I can also add that by sabotaging this scorched earth policy on purpose I played into the hands of the enemy with the only aim to conclude this war as soon as possible and cease all those sufferings for the German people because I in my position had found out very clearly that every day the war was being continued was a crime against the German people.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: What date was this?
THE WITNESS: That was on the 19th of March, 1945.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Your Honor, this scorch earth decree, together with another affidavit of the former Reich Minister Speer, I shall introduce as a document afterwards, as it has not been granted me to bring the witness Speer here.
BY DR. RAUSCHENBACH:
Q. Witness, I have a last question to put to you. The President of the Court asked you about the methods of the political arrests in Germany a few minutes ago. Now, I want you to make a difference between your opinion today and your opinion at the time about all those things, and the possibility of your having had any influence on these things at the time. Did you, in your position as chief of Amtsgruppe A of the WVHA, or as chief of the administrative office of the SS prior to that, or later as chief of the administration of the Regular Police or the Wehrmacht - did you have any knowledge of and could you have intervened in any way with regard to the treatment of political enemies of Germany?