THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. FICHT: May it please Your Honors, before I make any further statements, may I state that I am acting here as the deputy for Dr. Haensel, by arrangement with Dr. Hoffmann, and I should like to ask a few questions in connection with the defendant Georg Loerner. I would appreciate it if you can gain an impression of how I am representing Dr. Haensel, considering the long chain of command.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Dr. Haensel.
BY DR. FICHT: (For Georg Loerner):
Q. Witness, please take a look at Document Book No. XIV, and in there take a look at Document 1048, which is the last document in Document Book XIV. It's an order by Pohl that the W Office Chiefs were to inform Georg Loerner of all important matters. This is an order, as I may state, dated December 1942. Therefore, it is an order which came out prior to your time. My question now is the following: Did you know that order when you became Chief of W?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Was it handled in the manner in which it is described in that document?
A. No, it wasn't.
Q. Then I would like to ask you the additional question: Was Georg Loerner at any time consulted for important decisions in any matters of the Amtsgruppe, or, perhaps, as a second business manager of the DWB? Was he in a position to make such decisions in the first place?
A. Pohl was the sole man who took all the important decisions.
DR. FICHT: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: No Shakespeare?
DR. FICHT: No, not this time, Your Honors. I am sorry.
BY DR. FRACHT (For Dr. Froeschmann for the Defendant Mummenthey):
Q. Which factories of the DEST did you see?
A. Oranienburg, Flossenbuerg, and, together with Mummenthey, I saw Bergstetten.
Q. By Oranienburg, do you mean the brick factory?
A. Yes, the brick factory.
Q. Did you have the opportunity to gain an insight into the working conditions prevailing there?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What was the impression which you gained as far as those working conditions were concerned?
A. The large brick factory was strongly mechanized, and in no way can be compared with a normal brick factory which worked on handwork, for instance, the one which I saw in my northern Germany country.
Q. Do I have to understand from your answer that the work there was done mostly by machines and not by hand?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you see anything at all about the treatment of the inmates?
A. When I visited that factory I couldn't see a thing.
Q. Therefore, no abuses, and things like that, beatings, and so on?
A. No.
Q. Surely, you also gained an impression of the physical condition of the inmates. What was the impression you gained there? It is natural that the war had been going on for quite a while, and would have been natural to expect to see people in the finest physical condition.
A. Yes, bearing in mind war conditions, the condition of the inmates as I could observe them while working gave no reason for complaint.
Q. Do you know the business manager of the DEST Mumennthey dealt with the question of procuring additional food for the inmates and that he also succeeded in doing so?
A. Yes, I do know about it. I know in particular that he tried to get tobacco and food for those people, particularly, potatoes, and I would like to refer to the statement made by the Witness Karoli here yesterday, with whom I was in Oranienburg, and he spoke about those things on that occasion.
Q. According to your opinion these steps which the Defendant Mummenthey took, do you think that they were based on the fact that he thought that the people he saw at working places could no longer work, due to their physical weakness?
A. No, that was not the reason. The general food conditions in Germany might have contributed to Mummenthey making special efforts.
Q. And, as we are just speaking about Mummenthey as a person, let me ask you a question, which you as Chief of Amtsgruppe W should be able to answer, namely, what is your opinion of business qualifications of Mummenthey?
A. The business abilities on the part of Mummenthey, I could describe by using the word which is common in Germany, he was a good business man.
Q. And, if we change over to his personal qualifications, what do you say of them?
A. Mummenthey is a simple and quiet man, extremely industrious. He has a social conscience. He was simple and sober in his life and of all the office chiefs he was the one I liked most.
Q. From your answer I understand then that Mummenthey's attitude towards the inmates sprang from his human qualities.?
A. Yes, I believe this contributed more than anything else.
Q. Do you know, Witness, within whose competence within the business management of the DEST, the German Earth and Stone Works, questions concerning labor assignment of inmates were?
A. The competence of the labor assignment of the concentration camp inmates should actually be connected with that particular party who had to see to the production, that is the technical business management, and not the bookkeeping business department, and one of them was the business manager, mentioned here yesterday who was Schondorf.
Q. Then, Witness, Mummenthey's field of task referred to both the commercial and the one about bookkeeping and the financial one, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Was Mummenthey's time fully taken up by those fields of task?
A. Yes.
Q. Whose place did he take when he became the business manager of the DEST, the German Earth and Stone Works?
A. Through the auditing work which I carried out, it is known to me that in peacetime when establishing the big brick factories in Oranienburg, certain wrong investments had taken place, which prevailed to the disadvantage of the firm up to the moment when Mummenthey took over. This heritage was a bad one and it was not a very great advantage to him financially speaking.
Q. Very well, Witness, I have one more question. You were also at the construction site at Branbach-Kirchen, weren't you? That was where a large factory was to be established?
A. Yes, I visited the construction site. I heard that a certain construction was to be established there, but the land was agricultural rather and no preparations could be seen and nothing was being built and the only thing that was standing there was a barracks.
Q. My final question to you is of a technical nature. If on a document we have a so-called distribution list, as can be seen here on several occasions, and the fact that the person's name is contained on distribution list, does that mean that the person actually saw the document and acknowledged it and noticed it?
A. What do you mean, a distribution list or a circulation list?
Q. It would be about the same.
A. In the circulation list, if it is counter signed, he saw it, but in the distribution list it is not necessarily a fact that he saw it. It may have occurred, but it is not necessary.
DR. FRACHT: Thank you. No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions by the defense counsel? If not, the prosecution may cross-examine.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness, you have been telling us for two days that you never heard of the bad conditions in the concentration camps and in the course of your business that you were not informed about the conditions of concentration camp inmates which existed in any of the industries; everything, as far as you know, you say, was quite beautiful in the concentration camps. I am going to show you a few documents now which I think will help your memory in that respect. As far as I can find out these are not the documents that you surrendered. First will you tell us what the German Schieferoel Company was? Was this one of the SS industries?
A. The German Schieferoel, G.M.B.H., had been founded by the SS.
Q. Was it under the control of the WVHA?
A. The Deutsche Schieferoel, G.M.B.H., was part of Amtsgruppe B. However, I would like to add that the Deutsche Schieferoel, G.M.B.H., didn't have a factory of its own, but.....
Q. You say it was part of Amtsgruppe B?
A. No, W.
Q. W?
A. W, yes.
Q. And did you receive a copy of this letter, which is document NO 3793?
I should like to mark this Prosecution Exhibit 582 for identification. It is NO 3793. Do you remember this letter, Witness? It is surely something you couldn't forget.
A. I have never seen that letter.
Q. That is very interesting. We will investigate that a little further. Will you turn to the last page of the letter? I should like to read you just a part of it. First tell us who Jacobi is?
A. Jacobi was the business manager of the Deutsche Schieferoel G.M.B.H.
Q. This letter is addressed to Staff W, and there he says:
"I have lately thoroughly inspected Camp Bisingen, administered by SS Hauptsharfuehrer as Camp Commander, and I found frightful conditions prevailing there." And then he makes the following report: "The camp was occupied in the first days of October by 1500 mostly Polish prisoners. It is situated on an extremely wet meadow; there are no pathways. The ground has become completely bogged. The hygienic installations, which are of the most primitive kind, such as toilets, dispensary and washrooms, are absolutely inadequate; further, they are too far apart, and hard to reach under these muddy conditions. Consequently, extreme filth and vermin are prevailing, and the health situation has become unjustifiable. On 1 December 1944 there were about 420 persons sick, mostly from diarrhea, a general debility and weakness of the heart." I suppose you believe those causes when you saw the letter -- but continuing - "Since the Camp has been in operation 233 deaths are on record (in 8 weeks); of these only 6 were shot whilst trying to escape, and 6 committed suicide. A graph is annexed." Perhaps when I show you the graph it will help your recollection as to whether or not you saw the letter. Do you remember seeing this graph of the prisoners dying there?
A. (inaudible)
Q. Beg Pardon?
A. (inaudible)
Q. Will you look quite closely at the markings on the graph?
A. From this graph here I can see the graph, a written notation by Pohl.
Q. Did you carry out any function at all with regard to this oil company, you arranged for the guards to be sent there, and arrangements for billeting to be furnished?
A. No.
Q. Do you mean to say you never saw this letter?
A. No, I don't recall having seen this letter.
Q. I will show you another document --
A. All it contains is that pencilled -
Q. That isn't your "B" down there at the bottom by any chance is it, it is not the way you make a "B", is it?
A. Where? I don't see that.
Q. On the graph?
A. All I can see is a "P".
Q. You don't see a "B" down there, in the lower right hand corner?
A. On this document, no.
MR. ROBBINS: Let me see the one he has.
THE WITNESS: That is the date, the 13th of December.
Q. Allright. Let me show you another document, witness, perhaps this will --
Q. You say this is not your initial?
A. No, that is not my initial. That is 13 December. That is what it stands for, the 13th or 12th.
Q. This isn't the way you make a "B" in any event, is it?
A. No, it isn't.
Q. Let me show you another letter, Witness, and see if this helps your recollection.
DR. FRITSCH: May it please, Your Honor, could I ask that the photostatic copy be shown to me also. Oh, I have a copy. Thank you very much. Thank you. I have it now.
Q. This is your "B" on this letter, isn't it, Document NO 3794?
A. That is my "B" allright.
Q. This is written several days after the first letter, and in this letter you arrange for the guard details in the prisoner camps. You say you have made contact with the defendant Fowler, Office Group D-2.
I should like to mark both the graph and this letter for identification. The graph has a separate document number, NO 4073, which I will mark as Prosecution Exhibit 583, and the document NO 3794 as Prosecution Exhibit 584.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Mr. Robbins, let me see the photostat copy of the original, where the "B" is initialed, --- of 584.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. You wrote this letter, did you not?
A. The letter was not written by me.
Q. You signed it, didn't you?
A. Yes, I signed it. It was written by Dr. Volk and refers to a letter dated December 6, -
Q. I should like to show you the letter of 6th December, -- perhaps this will help your recollection on this subject. This is NO 4078. I will mark this Prosecution Exhibit 585 for identification. Did you receive this letter, witness?
A. Yes, it came to our staff, and I countersigned.
Q. And it was sent by the same Jacobi and it was a request that you make arrangements for the guards for this industry; and you say you didn't make any kind of an arrangement or have any dealings with the billeting of the inmates there. I should like to show you still another document and see if this doesn't also help your recollection.
This is NO 3900, which I will mark as Prosecution Exhibit 586. This is signed by the Chief-W. Did you see this letter before, Exhibit 586, Document NO 3900?
A. That is a letter which was signed by Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Hofmann.
Q. And he signs your title to it, the Chief of Staff-W; I ask you the question, have you seen this letter before? It is a simple question to answer.
A. You mean the letter which was a reply to this one? You mean the letter which was a reply to this one, Mr. Prosecutor? Yes, I did.
Q. I am talking about the letter of 25 February 1945?
THE PRESIDENT: The 22nd.
Q. The 22nd of February 1945?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And this deals with providing the accommodation of prisoners who worked with the industry. I would like to call your attention, witness, that on the first document I showed you that the document is addressed the same way, and deals with the same subject matter, and it is a subject you have been dealing with over a course of months; you still maintain you didn't see the report on the conditions?
A. No, I didn't see that report. That could be seen from the photostat copy.
Q. The photostatic copy shows that it was marked for the Chief of Staff W. You mean to say that you didn't get it?
A. If I didn't have my initials on that I didn't receive it.
Q. Can you make any possible explanation for the fact that you didn't receive it when you received all these other letters and dealt with them? Couldn't it be because you have --
A. It was a matter that I didn't have to deal with and according to my opinion the whole thing seems to have been that the letter went to Staff W by Jacobi by mistake and the photostatic copy was transferred, Dr. Hoffmann countersigned and it was sent on to Pohl.
Q. This whole thing was just directed to Staff W by mistake, was it? Just got into your hands by mistake - this whole matter is that your story?
A. What I said referred to the first document. The task of the procurement of guard unit from Amtsgruppe D and the report on the decision made by the main office chief that the terain for inmates was to be paid by Reich fund has been dealt with in Staff W.
Q. Yes, This whole matter as is observed from the document came within your confidence. I would like to show you still another letter dealing with this matter and see if you can remember this. This is NO-4077. From the same Jacobi, addressed in the same way and about the same subject matter, namely about the conditions in the camp. Did you receive this letter? Did you receive this letter?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you read it? This concerns the same subject matter that the first letter dealt with, doesn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. It is entitled "Conditions at Camp Bisingen". I would like to show you another document, witness, that shows that you continued dealing with this matter. Before we leave 4077 I should like to mark that as Exhibit 587.
The document I have just handed to you is 4070. I will mark that as Prosecution Exhibit 588 for identification. This is addressed to Amtsgruppe and to Amt A/III, and concerns the acquisition of land for the project. Did you see this letter, witness?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Who is it initialed by?
A. It is signed by Hoffmann and I countersigned.
Q. I would like to show you another very interesting document, witness, that may help your memory on this. It is a file note written by you.
DR. FRITSCH: Mr. President, may I interrupt. So far Mr. Robbins has only been introducing documents and given the witness an opportunity to say something about those documents in very few cases. Therefore, I would appreciate it if Mr. Robbins would permit him to do so. The witness so far has only received one document after another without actually being in a position to say whether he saw it or not.
MR. ROBBINS: I will give him the chance to explain. I think he said in each instance whether or not he saw this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that all you want to show, that he knew of such a document?
MR. ROBBINS: That's all I have asked him so far, Your Honor. I intend to show more by it.
THE PRESIDENT: If Mr. Robbins doesn't ask all the questions you want you can ask the witness when Mr. Robbins is through.
DR. FRITSCH: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Is this your signature on document NO-4076?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. This is dated 20 October 1944, Exhibit 589 for identification. This is several months before the letter of the 4 December 1944 but it is for a period after the beginning of the graph, which is Exhibit 583.
Perhaps you can tell us why it is that it was necessary to keep these reports in the secret files. It wasn't because reports showed that inmate laborers were dying at their work, was it?
A. I believe that the graph which I saw was from the month of December, that was 13 of December.
Q. It started on first of October through the last of December. Correction - through the last of November. The letter is 4th December. That wasn't why it was marked secret and kept in the safe was it?
A. The letter dated 4 December you referred to, you mean?
Q. Let me ask you this. Isn't it true that all of these documents were kept in a secret safe in the WVHA building?
A. They were kept in the files is to be assumed but if they were secret I do not know but it is stressed that it was a report to the ReichFuehrer.
Q. Do you remember what this report of Pohl's to the ReichFuehrer concerned, what it was about?
A. No, I don't. I believe the file note was made only for the public files in order to know such a report was written.
Q. It wasn't to insure that it would be kept a secret matter, was it?
A. I can't tell you the contents of the report.
Q. You don't recall today that all of these documents that I have shown you and all of the letters concerning the Slate Oil Company were kept in a safe and were considered secret material. You don't recall that?
A. If I take a look at this document here for instance concerning the purchase of land I don't see that it was in the secret files.
Q. Which one was not in the secret files?
A. I assume it wasn't in the secret files because there is nothing concerning the files here. I mean the report dated 5 February 1944 which refers to the purchase of land.
Q. I would like to show you 2 more documents on this subject matter, witness. The first one is 4075 which I will mark as Prosecution Exhibit 590. Can you tell us first who signed this letter NO 4075?
A. I can't make out the signature. There was no Captain or SSObersturmfuehrer in Staff W.
Q. And it is addressed to Dr. Volk. Do you remember seeing this letter.
A. No, I don't.
Q. Did you discuss the contents with anyone?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Did you have any contact yourself with Sommer about this matter, about anything to do with the Slate Oil Company?
A. I don't recall having had anything to do with Sommer.
Q. Did you ever talk to him on the telephone? Did you ever write to him?
A. In view of all the many things I had to work on, I really couldn't tell you for sure if I did or not.
Q. You can't remember today whether or not you ever wrote Sommer about inmate labor, allocation of inmates, allocation of guards?
A. No.
Q. You can't remember, or you remember that you didn't? What is your statement?
A. Well, a document has already been shown which referred to the guards, unless I am very much mistaken, but I didn't deal with that document. I really can't remember having sent a letter to Sommer.
Q. The letter that you are referring to is NO-3794, signed by you, and you make this statement:
"Upon your request for information, I inform you that I have established immediate contact with Office Group D..."
You say, "I have established immediate contact with Office Group D and have requested that by all means 79 men be detached as guard detail for the oil field there. SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Sommer of Office Group D II has promised to take the case up with SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Harbohm and to cause the necessary steps to be taken."
Does that help your recollection any?
A. I don't have the document before me. This isn't the document that was shown before, is it?
Q. I'll show it to you again. This is NO-3794.
A. Yes, I saw that before. That was taken care of in Staff W by Dr. Volk, and I signed it.
That is correct.
Q. Well, I am asking you again: Do you recall having made any contact yourself with Sommer? Do you remember that you didn't? Do you remember that you did not? Just what is your recollection?
A. I cannot recall having done it.
Q. The last document I should like to show you in this series is NO-4074. I'll mark that as Prosecution Exhibit 591 for identification. I ask you if you remember seeing this letter, 7 February 1945, concerning the purchase of the real estate for this project?
A. Yes, I did see that. It was taken care of by the expert of Dr. Hoffman, and I received it for informational purposes. It is addressed to the legal office, A-III, and deals with the purchase of real estate.
DR. FRITSCH: Excuse me, Your Honor. I believe that we have received different documents here. The witness is just speaking about a letter which was addressed to the legal office, A-III; as Exhibit 191 I received a letter addressed to the Deutsche Schieferoel, G.m.b.H., dated 7 February 1945. Therefore, there must be some misunderstanding.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness, do you have a letter dated 7 February 1945 in your hands?
A. I have a letter here dated 7 February 1945, and it is addressed to the legal office, A-III, within the building, and dealt with by Staff W and Dr. Hoffmann.
Q. You have been given the wrong document. I'll hand you a mimeographed copy of the letter and show you the photostat in the morning. Do you recall having seen this letter? Witness, do you have Document NO-4074 in your hands?
A. Yes, I do. It is addressed to the Deutsche Schieferoel, G.m.b.H. and deals with the purchase of real estate. I took cognizance of this letter and it was handled by Dr. Hoffmann of Staff W.
Q. Can you tell us briefly what Office Group A and A-III had to do with this matter?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, I didn't quite understand your statement. Amtsgruppe A?
Q. Amtsgruppe A, and particularly A-III.
A. From the sentence concerning the question of whether the area was to be purchased or leased for the inmates' camp, the legal office, Amtsgruppe A, as the competent office for the purchase of real estate, has to decide on this; according to my opinion this shows that the legal expert is of the opinion that such a purchase of real estate for a camp for inmates is not up to Staff W, but rather that the Reich has the right of decision as the competent agency. That can be seen from that sentence.
Q. It was the job of A-III to make the purchases for the sites for concentration camps, is that what you are saying?
A. In this case this is shown because it is stated here that the legal office of Amtsgruppe A has a right to decide as a competent agency for a purchase of real estate for the Reich.
Q. I can see that from the letter. I am asking you generally. You know generally that it was the function of A-III to make purchases of concentration camp sites generally? That was handled through A-III?
A. I have no experience in this field and I couldn't tell you anything at all because this particular case is unique. There was never another such case during all the time when I was there. In the Deutsche Schieferoel it worked out this way, that, practically speaking, it was only a name, a fictitious name, because the factory was in the hands of the German Oil Scientific Research G.m.b.H. This German Oil Scientific Research was under a Reich agency, and it was the one that established the factories. In Schieferoel G.m.b.H., which existed as such, there was no factory.
Q. I didn't ask you all that. I just asked you if you knew generally that it was A-III's job to purchase sites for concentration camps. You can answer that yes or no.
A. No, I don't know it. In this case it should be assumed, but otherwise I didn't know anything about it.
Q. I think the record will show that you have testified that you saw all of this long series of letters, except the letter for 18 October 1944 and the letter of 4 December 1944, Exhibit 590 and Exhibit 582. You still maintain, witness, that in spite of this you had no knowledge of the contents of the letter of 4 December 1944? You never heard anything about the working conditions there?
A. If I didn't see the letter, then it is to be assumed that I didn't have any knowledge about these things.
Q. Who, do you think, received this letter - who in Staff W?
A. May I take a look at the document, please? After all I couldn't tell you without taking a look at it.
Q. You see that it is marked for the chief of Staff W.
A. According to the entry stamp Dr. Wenner put his initials, and Dr. Hoffmann was the one who wrote the file note, the file notes on the left-hand side. Therefore, I didn't have any knowledge.
Q. You didn't talk to them about it; they didn't talk to you about it. May I just ask one more question, Your Honor, before we recess? I should like to show you again NO-4077, Exhibit 587, which you say you did receive, and it is about the--
A. Yes, quite so.
Q. ---same subject matter, namely, conditions at the camp at Bisingen, and he refers here in his letter by the same writer, Jacobi, he says, "This lack has led to the conditions already described." You knew very well what conditions?
A. Yes, I do know this letter.
Q. And you knew very well what conditions he had already described?
A. That the conditions were bad there can be seen from this letter.
Q. That is the letter that you received.
A. And that certain efforts were being made to improve and change those conditions, because there is a request here for rubber boots, accommodations, etc., etc. Therefore there was to be an improvement.
Q. You weren't curious to find out what he was talking about when he said that he had already described the conditions to you?
A. It is possible that bad conditions were discussed. The possibility is not excluded, but I was not informed of details if I didn't see the document. I assume that it did not appear, otherwise I would have remembered it.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until tomorrow morning at nine-thirty.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until nine-thirty tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 24 July 1947 at 0930 hours.)
Official transcript of Military Tribunal No. II, Case IV, in the Matter of the United States of America against Oswald Pohl, et al., defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 24 July 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Toms presiding.
THE MARSHAL: 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 defendant Kiefer is absent from this session of the Court because of illness. The trial will proceed in his absence.
DR. HOFFMANN (Counsel for defendant Scheide): May it please Your Honor, I have a question with regard to the proceedings. I take it that in general the results of the introduction of evidence will be dealt with in our closing speeches. Tribunal No. I, the case of the doctors, has desired that we also compiled so-called closing briefs and write the necessary comment on the introduction of evidence there. I would appreciate, that should this Tribunal also be of the same opinion as Tribunal No. I -- that possibly a closing brief should be submitted by the defense counsels to the Tribunal -- that we may be informed in time so that we may be able to prepare it, because otherwise it would in the end result in difficulties, particularly also with reference to the translations.
Personally, I would appreciate it if I could deal with the entire presentation of evidence in the closing speech rather than in a closing brief.
One more fact which should not be forgotten is that the time may be fixed for the final plea should not be too short. In the Military Tribunal No. 1, one hour only has been fixed in view of closing briefs for this final plea being submitted. However, if this Tribunal does not wish a closing brief and that would be in my interest also, then I would wish to ask if you would fix the time for the Plaedoyer to be one to two hours.