Q. Witness, I am not coming to the case of the Concentration Camp Warsaw. By whose orders was the arrest of the commander carried out?
A. I ordered his arrest. I signed his warrent for arrest.
Q. And hew can you example your letter to the collaborator of the SS, court officer of the EVHA, where you congratulate him for his success and where you answer that you will personally deal with his group yourself.
A. I have already stated before in my examination that Hauptstu,fuehrer Gross-Himrich was the first on to be at Warsaw and that there he carried out the preliminary interrogations and the original arrest. For his quite unusual activity on the part of Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl and for this initiative of his collaborator, Gross Hinrich, I was so surprised and I was so glad about the fact that I congratulated him for it.
Q. In line with you investigation, how often did you go to Warsaw?
A. I told you that I was not in Warsaw, but that I only took part in these investigation in parts.
Q. Do you know that the people whom you arrested at the time were kept in the concentration camp Oranienburg until they were to be tried?
A. Yes, because Pohl prevented the trail proceeding from the startine.
Q. What do you mean by prevented?
A. He kept on transferring all the witnesses and the suspects in the case so that a legal trial was not possible.
Q. However, witness, you yourself have stated before that the arrest of the commander of the camp had been carried out by Pohl. What would his purpose be to have this man arrested first and then prevent his trail from being carried out?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Hoffmann.
DR. HOFFMANN (Attorney for the Defendant Scheide) : Before we in terrupted the witness, when we discussed the question of Warsaw? I am of the opinion, but I have not expressed it, that the Tribunal is suffici ently informed about all these questions.
However, because the witness did want to testify about this before, so he could not use up the time of the Tribunal.
Now, he should not be cross examined about it. Then he should give us all the circumstances and should describe to us just what happened in Warsaw. However, in this case we are also dealing with a case of corruption which actually must not have any probative value, and it is also murder.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, we don't know what happened at Warsaw. The witness says he wasn't there. If it is merely another instance of official corruption the Tribunal will say once more that we don't care to hear about it. If it involves war crimes or crimes against humanity, we do. Now, can't you get the distinction there?
DR. SEIDL: Your Honor, the witness has made statements in his affidavit about this corruption case. I do not know any more about the whole case than the witness has mentioned in his affidavit. It is the purpose of my examination to find out what actually went on there. I want to know whether the defendant Pohl is guilty in the clarification of the case and just what happened to the culprits in the investigation.
THE PRESIDENT: What did the culprits do?
DR. SEIDL: According to the answer which I have received from the witness, I must assume that two thing were involved there. First of all, we must have had a case of corruption here; and secondly, and that is shown by his last statement, some murder case was also involved here. It must have been involved in this question. Your Honor, I know just as little about it as the Tribunal; and the reason for my examination is to find out the details from the witness. However, if the Tribunal maintains the opinion that this question has nothing to do with the indictment, then I will also withdraw this question.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know whether it does or not. Witness, answer my question. Were the men who were arrested in the Warsaw concentration camp accused of brutality against prisoners or of murder?
A Yes, they carried out continual maltreatment and murder on inmates.
- 6719 a
THE PRESIDENT: That's what we are interested in. If the witness knows anything about that, let's hear it.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. Witness, what did you yourself do in order to speed up this trial?
A. I issued a warrant of arrest against the accused, and I instructed the SS and Police court at Warsaw to carry out the appropriate investigation. I also informed other commissions of the case. However, I was not able to take any further steps in this case because upon the representations of Pohl throught Schmidt-Klevenow I was relieved of my position as being in charge of the investigation in this case. That was done in September 1944 at Weimar.
Q. That was done after this order was issued which I showed you before?
Q. Weren't you able to turn to your immediate superior, the SS Obergruppenfuehrer Breithaupt, to see that something was done about the obstacles you alleged were placed in your path? Wasn't it possible for you to turn immediately to the Reichsfuehrer SS, who, after all, had personally established the SS Police Court Z.B.V.?
A. We tried to avail ourselves of this opportunity extremely often, and we constantly negotiated with Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl and the Reichs-fuehrer about this matter. We did use the opportunity. However, in practice Pohl did everything so that the trial could not be carried out.
Q. I now want to put to you some statements from an affidavit. Dr. Schmidt-Klevenow, whom you have mentioned before, has stated the following in an affidavit about this matter; and I Quote; "The case at Warsaw came to the knowledge of the WVHA through an anonymous letter. In accordance with letters, I immediately started an investigation, carrying it out successfully. The participants in the crime were arrested and taken to Oranienburg where they were kept in confinement until a short time before the surrender.
It is out of Question that I transferred the members of the SS who were accused into all directions.
"Dr. Morgen knew from the files which I turned over to the SS and Police Courts in accordance with my duty that the persons responsible for the crimes were in confinement. It is not true that I told the president of the Z.B.V. Court, Obersturmfuehere Ende, that he should withdraw the investigation. I saw Ende on only one occasion, and that was at the Koch trial at Weimar. Therefore, I could only have persuaded him to discontinue the trial in writing. However, this is also just as improbably and as untrue.
"I was glad when I was rid of the whole matter, which was so extensive, and I was warned about Dr. Morgen since he was now in charge of the investigation; and I asked him that he return the files to me so that the investigation could be carried on. It seems very strange and Quite improbably that Dr. Morgen should have charged me with the further investigations if he at the time already maintained the point of view that I was trying to obstruct the carrying out of this trial. My immediate intervention at Warsaw probably shows that the contrary was the case. Apparently Dr. Morgen at the time maintained a different point of view. Since my expert could tell me, he sent his congratulations about the successful results of the investigation. He sent these congratulations in writing."
I now want to ask you, witness, do you still want to maintain your previous testimony?
A. There is no reason for me to change one word which I have given in my testimony.
THE PRESIDENT: That's enough; that's the answer.
DR. SEIDL: I have another affidavit here by Dr. Gross-Henrich, your Honor. However, in order to shorten the examination, I do not want to put it to the witness; and I shall submit it independently in evidence.
Q. In another affidavit, witness, an affidavit which you already gave last year-
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, Dr. Morgen is my witness; and with regard to his veracity and the attacks which are directed against him by the defense counsel of Pohl, I want to make two requests. I request either that the witness Dr. Morgen can voice himself with regard to the accusations of Schmidt-Klevenow, or I make the motion that SchmidtKlevenow and Gross-Henrich be placed before the witness Morgen at this Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: This cross examination has assumed the proportions of a brawl or a quarrel between the witness and Pohl on matters that do not concern the Tribunal at all. Unless you confine it to matters relating directly to charges in the indictment, we'll stop the cross examination forthwith. In any event we are going to stop it at 12:30. You have fifteen minutes to cross examine, provided you confine your questions to the charges in the indictment or something relating to those charges. We've said this repeatedly. This is the last time we'll say it.
DR. SEIDL: Your Honor, I now request that I be permitted to obtain some information on a legal question which is not quite clear to me, with regard to the ruling which the Tribunal has made just now. The witness morgen on the 13th of July 1946 signed an affidavit which we submitted in this trial. In this affidavit incorrect statements have been made about the authority and about the activity of the defendant Pohl, in his position as a judge and in particular with regard to the question of whether he could be the supreme judge for the concentration camps. I therefore should like a decision as to whether the question has any probative value in this trial proceeding or not.
THE PRESIDENT: I haven't heard any question yet.
BY DR. SEIDL: Witness, in the affidavit which we have just referred to, you stated that the Main Office SS courts above all wanted to break the judicial authority of the Chief of the Main Office Pohl. I therefore want to ask you, Witness -- of what did this judicial authority of Pohl consist and what circle of people was it extended to or confined to?
In particular, did the concentration camps belong to the circle?
THE PRESIDENT: We know the answer to that. Pohl's authority as a judge extended only to the members of his own organization and not to the concentration camps.
DR. SEIDL: That is the answer which would be correct. In the affidavit of this witness, however, the contrary has been stated.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, ask another question.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q I now come to my final question, which refers to an exhibit which was submitted by the prosecution and which is located in Document Book IX. This is Document NO-265, which was submitted by the prosecution as Exhibit 219. In this document the witness Dr. Morgen is mentioned; and I should like to put part of this entry to you. This is the Diary of Ding; and here we have an entry of the 31st of December 1943.
I quote verbatim from that entry: "Special experiment on four persons in matters pertaining to Koch-Hoven. By order of SS Gruppenfuehrer Nebe the experiment was carried out in the presence of Dr. Morgen and Dr. Wehnert. Dr. Ding, Sturmbannfuehrer." That latter portion is the signature.
Witness, I now want to ask you, what special experiment was carried out here and just to what extent did you participate in this experiment? I would like yon to answer my question as briefly as possible.
AAbout this experiment I have given two affidavits in the medical case. It was very much in detail there. In this connection I want to say that on the 31st of December, when this special experiment is alleged to have taken place, I was not at Buchenwald. Since my parents had been bombed out at this time I was with them at the time. Also, this was not a special experiment by order of Gruppenfuehrer Nebe, but this was done by order of Gruppenfuehrer Mueller.
Q Witness, you deny that you were there?
A I don't deny anything; but I just am explaining to you in answer to your question what happened. I had nothing whatsoever to do with the experiment because I am not a physician, and I can't make any experiments. But the physician who carried out the experiment asked me to attend as a witness. On this occasion I assured myself for my own satisfaction of the fact that this experiment would not be dangerous to the lives and the health of the experimental subjects; that these persons had volunteered for the experiments and that actually nothing happened to Court No. II, Case No. 4.them during the experiment.
Q That is sufficient for me, witness. Now, I am going to put a statement to you which is very brief and which the witness Dr. Eugen Kogon has made before Military Tribunal Number I. This is the court record of the session of the 17th of January 1947; and I quote from Page 1213 of the German text:
"Q. Do you know anything about experiments which were carried out with poison at the concentration camp Buchenwald?
"A. I know of two such cases. In the one case, it was around the turn of the year 1943 or 1944 or late in the fall of 1943. In the second case it took place in the summer of 1944. In each case Russian prisoners of war were used for these experiments. In the first case various drugs of the so-called alcaloid series were put into a noodle soup, and they were given to the prisoners of war at Block 46, who, of course, did not know that these chemicals were contained in the soup. Two of the prisoners became so sick that they had to vomit. One of them became unconscious. The fourth one did not show any signs of any effects whatsoever. Then all four prisoners were strangled in the crematorium and they were dissected. The contents of their stomachs and other effects were determined. The experiment was carried out by orders of the SS Court, by the SS, and investigating judge SS Sturmbann fuehrer Dr. Morgen. It was carried out in the presence of Dr. Ding, Dr. Morgen, Dr. Wehnert, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer and SS Judge, and one of the three camp commanders. I don't exactly know any more whether it was SS Sturmbannfuehrer Schobert or SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Florstedt."
Q Witness, I now want to ask you, do you still claim that you were not participating in this experiment?
A The description of the witness Kogon is based on hearsay. That is what Kogon stated himself. He also gave us his source of information. He talked to the inmate nurse Kaczinsky, who, in turn, heard about these things through hearsay. Nothing of the things he mentioned is true. The Sturmbannfuehrer Florstedt whom he mentioned as being present was the commander of the concentration camp Lublin.
At that period of time he had already been arrested on my orders. He was sentenced to death and shot. The harmless nucleus of this experiment, which was ordered by Gruppen fuehrer Mueller, and not I or an SS and Police Court, was carried out in the case of a murder affair. Here we dealt with the claim of an expert that it was possible that in small amounts pervitin could be taken together with a sleeping powder and that these two drugs together could lead to death.
THE PRESIDENT: The only question that was asked was, "Were you there? Were you there when the experiment was performed?"
DR. SEIDL: I have no further questions, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the answer?
Q. Witness, just answer the question of the Tribunal. Where were you when this experiment was carried out? I believe that was the question of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: That's right, it was your question.
A. I did not see at all an experiment which you have described in its course.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. HOFFMANN:
Q. Witness, did the prosecution ask you about this matter?
Q Was any charge ever raised against you about it?
DR. RAUSCHENBACH (for the defendant August Frank): Your Honor, I believe that my questioning will be completed before the recess.
"22 August 47-M-AK-12-2a-Caming-(Garand) RECROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. RAUSCHENBACH:
Q. Witness, you deposed an affidavit which was submitted before the IMT by the defense of the SS. It is located here in the document book of the defense for the defendant Scheide; and it contains the following paragraph:
"Against the persons carrying out blood orders, trial proceedings had already been started on my orders. Among others of the persons concerned...." Then comes a series of names, among them Eichmann and Hoess. Then follows a new paragraph:
"Against SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl and Frank preliminary investigations were already under way; and enough evidence had already been accumulated against both of them to a considerable extent."
I ask you, did you have any suspicion against Frank because he had carried out blood-orders or any atrocities connected with the concentration camps?
A. No, that can't be understood in this way with regard to the person of Frank because a new paragraph starts here; and, of course, that paragraph contains a different idea.
Q. Of what did the preliminary examination of Frank consist?
A. Well, there was a very sever suspicion of corruption against Frank.
BY DR. GAWLIK (for the defendant Volk):
Q. Witness, in your investigations were you ever to determine whether the defendant Dr. Volk had dealt with any concentration camp matters?
A. The name of Volk means nothing to me at all.
THE PRESIDENT: Could you want anything more than that
DR. GAWLIK: Just one more question, your Honor.
Q. Would Dr. Volk have been sure to have come to your knowledge in connection with your line in the concentration camps and investigations matters if he had had anything to do with the concentration camps?
THE PRESIDENT: Why don't you let well enough alone? He says he never heard of Volk. Now, be smart; just stop right there. You'll get into trouble if you go any further.
Let's recess until 1:45.
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal II will be in recess until 1345 hours.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. SCHMIDT (Attorney for Joseph Vogt):
Q. I would like to ask a few small question to the witness. Witness, on the two affidavits which yon mentioned this morning, which you wrote on the 13th of July, 1946, and on the 29th of January, k947, where in you made certain charges against my client that he was willing tool of the defendant Pohl and as such he collaborated with Pohl. I would like to ask you witness, this charge, on your part, dies it refer to the official function of the defendant Vogt in his capacity as auditor?
Q. In this charge, therefore, in any connection with the corruption cases which were considered and declared irrelevant of this Tribunal?
A. In this why yes.
Q. In the last affidavit which you recorded dated 29 January 1947 you stated that the defendant Vogt utilized his official position to enrich himself. I only want to ask you t is one question in this connection namely, do you base this knowledge of you own perception, witness, or can the cource be founded on hearsay?
A. Those were reports from my investigation agents.
BY DR. SCHMIDT: No further questions.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN (Attorney for defendant Mummenthey):
Q. I have only two questions. Herr Dr. Morgen, this morning you spoke of secluded stone quarries. Were you thinking about any stone quarry in particular, witness?
A. I was thinking about the stone quarry at Buchenwald.
Q. In your investigations did you come across Mummerthey while carrying on investigations at the camps?
DR. FROESCHMANN: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: And other questions by defense counsel?
If not, Prosecution may cross examine of desired.
BY MR. PONGER: CROSS EXAMINATION
Q. Dr. Morgen, yesterday at the beginning of your examination you spoke about the impression of the concentration camp left on a visitor when he came to a camp. In this connection you mentioned installations like radios, floor shows, and you also said that the food there was good and the billeting was wonderful. In order that you don't create a wrong impression, in order that one does not gain the felling that you are not speaking of a German subur but of a concentration camp, I would like to discuss some of this questions. You personally carried out a number of tours in the camps and both know the concentration camp at Buchenwald?
Q. It is correct, it it not, that there was a movie in the concentration camp at Buchenwald. You spoke about it yesterday, didn't you?
Q. Did you know that executions were carried out during the day and that the space where the movie was and in the evening where the movies were?
A. This absolutely now to me. All I know was that executions took place at the site of the crematoria and at the Crematoria itself, and not that they took place in the movie of the concentration camp at Buchenwald?
Q. Well. did you think that Pister should have know anything about it?
A. Certainly; he knows something about the incidents during his time there. I don't know if the information you have refer to the commanders in General or to Pister.
Q. Do you know furthermore, witness, that the radio installations at the concentration comp was used in order to transmit Hitler's speaches to the inmates while it was raining and while it was snowing in the winter?
A. Every-thing was communicated to them through that camp radio, orders to the camp inmates themselves and also when special communications were made.
Q. How do you mean that everything was communicated to them?
A. I mean that they were not only used to entertain the inmates but they had among this purpose, Among other purposes.
Q. Did you listen to any of those entertainment programs through the radio at Buchenwald concentration camp.
A. Will you please be more precise.
Q. I am asking for the following reasons: the inmates were not in the concentration camp and therefore they could not hear the things?
Q. The inmates had to work up to 12 hours a day and therefore they had every little time left for entertainment purposes. Don't you think so witness?
A. Not all the inmates were outside of the camp all along, in the evening, and at the end of the afternoon, and particularly Sunday afternoon the radio was at their disposal. Namely, to transmit programs form German stations.
Q. To come back to something else. Did you ever hear those programs?
A. Yes, you could hear that some distance.
Q. It is correct that the concentration camp at Buchenwald wal abandoned?
Q. Did you know that sometimes there was part of the morning prayer and the band played Sunday mornings and you also had a special scaffold there in the camp and the inmates were places in that scaffold and beaten as part of my experiences.
A. The camp played every morning when the inmates went to work and when they returned in the evening. There was also chamber music once in a while and small civilian concerts on certain Sunday afternoons. Then at the some time people were beaten at the time of the music which was one of the innovations I heard about after the capitulation.
Q. You also mentioned the brothel which also existed at Buchenwald. I believe you said that yesterday?
Q. Did you know why inmates were sent to the brotherl?
A. According to my knowledge this was established in all concentration camps at the same time.
Q. Unfortunately this is not correct; it only applied to a few camps Did you know this was done by order of Himmler in order to revive the will of work among the inmates?
Q. Did you know the establishment was boycotted by the political prisoners.
A. I was not under the impression that the brothel was boycotted at any time. On the contrary there was quite a crowd out there and I think it is correct that many inmates, in spite of the fact that they hadn't seen a woman in years and years they declared that they did not want to make any use of the brothel.
Q. You also knew that the feeling for art in Buchenwald was so great that the wife of the former camp commander Koch whom we know very will, collected the tattooings of the prisoners in order to give them to people later on, and sometimes she even helped them turn it in much sooner and faster.
A. Excuse me, I think about this question: I am very well informed and both there and in the Buchenwald trail I would like to explain explicitly that was propaganda lie. I have visited the house of the commander from top to bottom and for two days after, that I saw three criminal agents there and we searched the entire house, piece by piece, and not one single occasion did we find one single item which had anything to do with lamp shades of human skin or picture albums which were covered with that skin.
Q. Witness, I would have to come back. You told me today that it took you two to seven months to find out the murders in the concentration camp.
INTERPRETOR HI*HA: Your Honor, it is impossible to translate as fast as the witness and the lawyer are talking.
Q. Shall I repeat the question?
A. It took me approximately two months to find out about the murders of the concentration camps. It took approximately four months to find out that there were also extermination camps apart from the concentration camps.
Q. I want to all you that it only took one day to find that and it took you two months, and therefore it is absolutely possible that the question of the lamp shades and gloves of which Frau Koch was convicted, to a life sentence in jail, is true, and I can also tell you that the lamp shades and gloves were found among the inmates of Buchenwald, that general Eisen however saw them personally.
A. Then those items should have been used in the Buchenwald trial and the Dachau trial as evidence. I know they were not introduced. There was a piece of skin which was tatooed which was in the laboratory camp there but according to my knowledge Frau Kock had nothing to do with it. I personally arrested Frau Koch and I indicted her.
Q. I would like to turn to something else now, and I would also like to talk about Auschwitz. Were you personally at the concentration camp at Auschwitz at anything.
Q Three weeks ago I had opportunity to visit the concentration camp at Auschwitz and around that area. I had the opportunity to check up on the statements made by Hoess and I spoke with him of the defendants on that trial, Liebehenschel, etc.etc. names which you usually know. You stated yesterday that the camp of Auschwitz, Birkenau was a some what purely extermination camp. Therefore, I would like to put the following before you, applicable to the statements made by Hoess, and according to the class of the camp which has been founded and also of my inspection there, I believe that the camp of Auschwitz consisted of three parts: Auschwitz 1, Auschwitz 2 and Auschwitz 3. The camp Auschwitz 1 was the main camp which was the so-called model camp and that is where the first crematoria existed and where the first gassing took place. The concentration camp Auschwitz-Birkenau is not a purely extermination camp but the largest concentration camp of that area and that consists of two parts, mainly a male and female camp and up to 200,000 inmates were kept there. Among the concentration camp of Auschwitz you can find the Crematoria 2 and 3 and later on four and five where the exterminations took place. Now, do you know those things, witness?
A I don't quite understand what you are asking me about.
Q The point is, witness, that you testified yesterday that AuschwitzBirkenau was a purely extermination camp and therefore you could deduct conclusions that very few people knew about the executions. I can tell you that right near the loading point was a small point where there were civilian workers. I spoke to those civilian workers and they knew exactly what was going on and the same applies to hundreds of thousands of people in the camp who watched the unloading of the camp's inmates into the Crematoria. Therefore, I think we can agree.
A Mr. Ponger, I believe we agree, therefore, that the camp of Auschwitz was separate from that of Birkenau.
A The only differences which exists between my statements and your statements is that according to the picture today apart from the extermination camp there was also a small labor camp, as you stated yourself. During my visit which took place art the end of 1943 and early 1944 I never saw such a small labor camp.
Q I believe we don't quite understand each other. There is no extermination camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau but there is an extermination which took place at Auschwitz-Birkenau. The camp had a capacity of 200,000 inmates, which were not destined to be exterminated, but were working there. That is where our two statements differentiate.
A Then you can comprise the extermination camp from an organizational view together with the Auschwitz camp. All I stated was this extermination camp was separated from a space point of view from the concentration camp at Auschwitz.
Q Not from the camp at Auschwitz Birkenau, and it was also separated from Auschwitz No. 3 which is at Monowitz. Hoess, for a period of time, was commander of all those camps?
Q I would like to talk about the extermination of the Jews which took place there and there are also a few points which are not quite clear and I would like to clear them up. Now then, in one of your affidavits you spoke about the extermination of the Jews, that you were told about it by Grawitz.
A Yes, quite so.
Q Hoess states that he, in 1941, in the month of June, received the order by Himmler to make certain proposals to him as to how extermination of Jews could be carried out. Do you know that?
A No, I don't.
Q Do you realize what part Hoess played in there and what part Eichmann had to play?
AAccording to my opinion, and according to my findings, it was Eichmann who had the organization of the seizure of the Jews and the transportation of those.