A. It says so in this plan. I have said that it never came to my knowledge that the Department C-I had built prisoner of war camps.
Q. Well, the fact is that you say so in this plan, don't you?
A. Yes, I do; yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Dr. Seidl.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. May I just interpose one question? My question had been aimed at the point whether, according to your knowledge, that group had actually constructed prisoner of war camps or not.
A. I have no knowledge that Department Group C did build prisoner of war camps.
Q. As Exhibit 46, the Prosecution submitted a document dealing with the organization and tasks of Amtgruppe W. It is document No.-116, on page 123 in the German document book, and in the English text on page 105. I want to ask you this: who compiled this report, and what was its aim?
A. This compilation comes from a member of Staff W. Just who compiled it at the time is something that I can't say. It was meant to be an instructional document in the case of lectures before members of the armed forces, which had been asked for during courses of instruction for quartermaster officials and the like.
Q. I now turn to Exhibit 47 of the Prosecution, part of document NO-489, on page 156 in the German Book II, and at page 113 in the English. Figure 1 states, among other things literally:
THE PRESIDENT: Isn't that 498? I thought you said something else.
THE INTERPRETER: Yes, 498; thank you sir.
Q. (Continuing): It states, under figure one, verbatim:
"The following service departments of the WVHA, and effective as of the 1st of September, 1942, will become independent agencies:
"(a) The Building Inspectorate "(b) The Chief Economic Post "(c) The Clothing Department of the Waffen SS; and "(d) The Payroll Department of the Waffen SS."
My question is: What do you consider in this connection to be independent agencies?
A. An agency becomes independent when the commader assumes sole responsibility, in other words, with regard to which he has certain independent powers; when, for instance, he becomes independent regarding disciplinary action, promotions, the question of commanding the members of the staff, transfers; when, in fact, he is no longer, on each individual point, depending upon instructions from above. That is what we call independent agencies.
Q. 0 I now turn to discussing a number of documents contained in Prosecution Document Book 3. According to the picture given by the Prosecution, it deals with internal connections in the WVHA. The first of these documents is NO-583, which the Prosecution presented as Exhibit No. 50. It is on page 30 of the German Document Book No. 3, on page 27 in the English version. It also contains the letter from the Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler to you dated 13 July 1942, in which he requests you to get in touch with Reich Minister Funk in order to obtain additional foreign currency for the carrying out of certain tasks and I want to ask you, why did Himmler ask you of all people to act as an agent with Reich Minister Funk?
A. During this particular period, Himmler was mostly staying at his headquarters in Eastern Prussia. During this time, that is to say, after Heydrich's death, he personally directed the RSHA. It is my guess that before that time Heydrich himself had always obtained such foreign currency from the Reich Minister of Economics. At any rate, before this time, I had never been asked to handle such an assignment. He also presumes as he says himself -
(The witness' answer was interrupted by a breakdown of the sound equipment).
THE MARSHALL: All persons in the court room will please find their seats. The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. Prosecution Exhibit No. 51 is a document submitted as an affidavit by Rudolf Hoess, the former Commander of Auschwitz, dated April 5, 1946, Document NO-3668, PS. It is on page 31 of the German Document Book 3, and on page 35 of the English text, that is an affidavit which, among other things, I quote from at the end: "That mass executions by gassing were carried out by direct order under the responsibility of the RSHA. All orders for these mass executions came directly from the RSHA." End of quotation. I should now like to ask you if you gained knowledge of these orders which were issued by the RSHA, according to the testimony of Hoess?
A. I received no knowledge of this order at all. It did not go through the WVHA.
Q. Did you discuss the concentration camps with Kaltenbrunner, the chief of the RSHA before negotiating with him in any other way?
A. No.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: What was the name of the head of the RSHA?
DR. SEIDL: SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Kaltenbrunner.
JUDGE MUSMONNO: Kaltenbrunner, yes.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. I shall now turn to Document NO-385, which is Prosecution Exhibit 54, Document Book 3, page 45 of the German text, and page 43 of the English text. This is an order from Himmler, dated 5 December 1941. Witness, has that order ever been carried out?
A. Yes, this order was carried out. In Mauthausen and Flossenburg we had big training centers. The heads of the latter training camp were under the direction of civilian craftsmen, when that training was put into effect.
Q. The next document which I wish to introduce here is document NO-500, which is Prosecution Exhibit No. 55. It is a teletype from Himmler to SS-Brigadefuehrer Gluecks, the Inspector of the concentration camps, which is on page 45 of the English text, and on page 50 of the German text.
It says, among other things, "Large economic tasks and orders will confront the concentration camps in a few weeks. SSGruppenfuehrer Pohl will inform you of the details." Here is my question. "What were these economic orders which are referred to here? Did you inform Gluecks of the details.
A. I had no knowledge of at all of this teletype letter, but I assume that this is the transfer of armament plants which was carried out by Gluecks in the following months. Thereafter there arose a need for armament workers in the concentration camps. That I think must be the subject of the teletype.
Q. In Document NO-1292, which is Prosecution Exhibit No. 56, Document Book III, page 51 in the German text, and page 46 in the English text, the increase in the deployment of prisoners of war is mentioned. What do you know about the increased employment of prisoners of war by the inspectors of the concentration camps?
A. The monthly survey which I received through Maurer, concerning the employment of inmates, did not contain a breakdown of the employment of inmates according to the political and the asocial elements, not was their nationality mentioned. All I could see was that the higher figures of inmates were such that I could not form an impression later if and how many prisoners of war were in concentration camps. As far as prisoners of war or what I assume were prisoners of war were in concentration camps, I thought that for some reason they had been captured by the Security Police, and then sent into the concentration camps. Of large groups of persons sent from the Stalags to the concentration camps. I never heard anything at all. Obergruppenfuehrer Kammler in his organization at plans never referred to the prisoners of war. He did not deduce for himself that prisoners of war were present in the concentration camps in any number so that they could be used for his construction plan.
I an not very well informed on this point.
Q. There is another letter from ss-Brigadefuehrer Kammler, Chief of Amt-C, of 16 May 1943, Prosecution Exhibit No. 57. It is Document NO 1215 in Document Book 3 on page 57 of the German text, and on page 55 of the English text. It is a letter from Kammler addressed to you, and concerns the allocation of concentration camps inmates for armament purposes. Now I want to ask you: "How was the transfer of concentration camp inmates to armament factories carried out?
A. First of all certain armament plants were transferred into the concentration camps by either housing them in existing work shops, or building the necessary work shops for that purpose, and when new work shops were erected, Kammler participated in a responsible manner. The inmates were transferred to a place in Buchenwald by the Gustloff Works, and a large workshop was near the women's concentration camp Ravensbrueck which belonged to Siemens-Schuckert, and also at Neuengamme in the workshops of Mauser. They were, I think, the first ones to follow that method, and, Kammler in his capacity as Chief of Amtsgruppe-C the construction service, together with the competent chief in the armament Ministry, who at that time was Staatsrat Schieber carried out these negotiations. From this document I have to point to the paragraph where he said that as far as the attitude of the WVHA was concerned to obtain the best results for the SS on the balance sheets, he hoped that those figures would be achieved, and then he expressed a view which I cannot understand to this day. He touched a question there which was not connected with this field of work namely that the SS was not at all interested in this transfer of armament plants but it was rather interested in the extent in which armament production could be increased. Later on, by order of Himmler, the Chief of the Leadership Main Office, the FNA, became interested, and he desired a priority delivery of arms from the plants which had been transferred into the concentration camps that is to say, pistols or rifles manufactured by Mauser, and things like that, but in that way Kammler seemed to regard it here, so far as the financial effect was concerned, that there was no classification.
For that reason the file note for Dr. Hohberg is without any point at all. I don't think that Dr. Hohberg was ever active in this particular affair. I never heard anything about it.
Q. On 22 November 1943 you addressed yourself to the commanders of the concentration camps in a circular letter which deals with the working hours of inmates. This is Document 1295, Prosecution Exhibit 60, Document Book 3, page 64 of the English text and page 65 of the German version. This letter says, among other things, that working hours ordered for inmates of 11 hours a day must be maintained during the winter months and that exceptions could only allowed if darkness set in too early for inmates to return to the camp in good time. What were the reasons for you to write this letter?
A. In this case I always followed the general practice which was observed and which frequently changed during the last years of the war as far as working hours were concerned, and in other cases I had to observe orders and instructions from the OKW. As early as 1943, for instance, the 48 hour week had became a 60 hour week with us in the free labor market, and in 1944 it even became a 72 hour week. This regulation also applied to working hours in concentration camps; and as far as the 12 hours are concerned, I changed the 12 hours to 11 hours, taking into consideration the general situation, such as food and so forth.
Q. The next document which I wish you to look at is Document NO-1270, which is Prosecution Exhibit 61, Document Book 3, page 73, of the German version, and in the English text on page 66. At the end of this document there is a file note of a conference concerning the OSTI, which had taken place on 13 February 1943 and in which you took part, as did SS-Brigadefurhrer Loerner, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Volk, SS Obersturmfuehrer Dr. Horn, and Dr. Hohberg. What was the subject matter of that conference, and what are your explanations to this document? I wish to call your attention to the second last paragraph of the file note, where it says the following:
"With regard to the question whether the Jewish properties were to be taken over under trusteeship or de facto, the SS Obergruppenfuehrer's standpoint was that the machinery and other equipment required by the Osti must be acquired from the Reich Ministry of Economics.
It follows, therefore, that the capital of the Osti must be considerably extended."
Before you answer my question, I must point out to you that later on we shall deal with the whole complex of the Osti in all details. We refer to this document now only because the Prosecution used it as part of its evidence concerning the organization of the WVHA.
A. This document -
MR. ROBBINS: Excuse me. I do not understand the question. Will you repeat it please?
Q. This was my question: What were the details of this conference? What were the reasons for which this conference of 13 February 1943 took place, and what, in particular, do you have to say to the second last paragraph of this file note, where the question is being dealt with as to whether the machines needed by Osti should be purchased by the Reich Ministry of Economics?
A. This conference had been requested by Obersturmfuehrer Dr. Horn, as the business manager of the Osti, which at that time was not yet founded. He came to Berlin and brought along this enormous questionnaire with about 30 questions on it, which I was unable to answer. The whole conference lasted little more than ten minutes, and I told him, "You had better go to Lublin first, to the General Government, and look at what things are like there. I can not judge them here from Berlin, and then this conference should be much easier." That was the end of the conference as such. I only answered three questions which he put to me. Question One was, "The East Industry, GMBH should use the Jewish labor of the General Government within the framework of the armament production, and should also use the property there. Is that order complete?" The second question was, "Is this order to be primarily regarded as a political or a police matter or as an economic matter.?" I told him at that time, "Both". The question at the bottom concerning the purchase of machinery which Osti needed for its enterprises was probably put as he left. My view was, basically speaking, that such machines as were necessary should be found and purchased.
As I said before, when that conference took place, I was very little informed about conditions and was therefore unable to answer these many questions. It was a very brief conference.
Q. There is another file note which comes from you yourself. It is dated 7 September 1943, and that was presented by the Prosecution as Exhibit 63. It is Document NO-599, Prosecution Document Book 3, page 75 of the German text and 74 of the English text. This file note concerns the taking over of Jewish labor camps by the SS and Police Leaders in the General Government. What is your explanation of that file note? What were your considerations when you took over these camps, and what purpose was to be served by this?
A. At that time, in the autumn of 1943, labor had been started by order of Himmler, which had the aim to improve the very confused armament production in the General Government. By the transfer from Western Germany to the Eastern territories there were to a considerable extent private firms who exploited loval labor, and thus more or less had become war profiteers. Himmler himself saw those conditions and had therefore reached that decision. The immediate negotiations for this purpose, the issuing of orders for this task, he delegated to Obergruppenfuehrer Krueger, who was at that time the Higher SS and Police Leader at Cracow, and Himmler's deputy in the General Government who had frequently reported to him about these problems, and when he returned some days later, he came and saw me and discussed with me how this order could be carried out as far as it concerned me. Some of these orders concerned the taking over of ten labor camps which the SS and Police Leaders had founded in the district of Lublin. The whole of the General Government had, I think, five districts, each of which was directed by an SS Police Leader under the orders of the Higher Police and SS Leader in, Cracow, and each one of these five SS and Police Leaders in his area had become fairly independent, and so here again, within the area of the SS, conditions were somewhat muddled and confused.
The overall situation was detrimental to armament production because this lack of coordination and the interference of private firms depended on the Inspector of the Army Equipment, Lieutenant General Schindler at Cracow. They therefore did not come up to scratch as far as labor was concerned and also the distribution of raw materials. In this file, now -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, this isn't even remotely in answer to your question. Now go back to your question again and insist that the witness answer what you asked him.
DR. SEIDL: I asked the witness what his reasons were for making this file note, which is Prosecution Exhibit No. 63, and he has now described the negotiations which led to the fact that the ten labor camps in Lublin, as contained under paragraph three of this file note were to have been taken over by the WVHA. I think the witness has finished with his description of these negotiations.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I know he has.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. On 13 January 1944 Amtsgruppe D addressed a circular to the commanders of the concentration camps, with the subject "Rendering of Reports from Concentration Camps." That circular letter is Prosecution Exhibit No. 64, Document NO-1548, in Document Book 3, page 76 of the English text. Here is my question: Were those protective custody reports from concentration camps submitted to you?
A. These reports never reached me. They went to the Inspectorate.
Q. And the Inspectorate did not pass on the reports to you?
A. No.
Q. Then there is another document which the Prosecution has submitted. It concerns food rations for the inmates. That is Document NO-576, in Document Book 3 on page 88, in the German text, page 86 of the English text. It comes from the Chief of Office D-2 and was written on 24 February 1944 in Oranienburg. What is your explanation of this document?
A. This concerns the pay of the inmates, and they only concerned the economic enterprises of the SS, which employed inmates. These enterprises which had originated in the work shops of the camps paid, when they were started, no money at all to the Reich. Only when in 1936 concentration camps were financed by the Reich and the Reich Ministry of Finance stipulated that moneys which would come in through the labor inmates had to be transferred to the Reich Ministry of Finance in order to pay for such expenses as the Reich incurred, and so, therefore, from that time onward, on an increasing scale, the income of these economic enterprises was transferred and sent to the Reich.
Q. Prosecution Exhibit No. 69 is a document headed "Directive for the Heads of Political Departments, at the conference of 23 March 1944". This is Document NO-1553, Document Book 3, page 91 of the English version, page 96 of the German text. I am now asking you: Who issued these directives and did the heads of the political departments take part in conferences of the commanders?
A. These directives, as I see from the signature, must have been drawn up by the Inspectorate. It ways on the bottom: Chief of the Office D-I. This is the central office of the Inspectorate. Whether the political heads took part in the official conferences between the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps and the camp commanders, is unknown to me.
Q. Another Prosecution Exhibit concerns compensation of concentration camp commanders for incurred expenses. This is Document NO-2160, Prosecution Exhibit 76, Document Book 3, Page 114 of the English text, and Page 104 of the German version. I am asking you now, for what reason were the camp commanders given these reimbursements, and from what funds did the money come?
A. When the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps was incorporated into the WVHA and when the allocation of labor was introduced, I decided to appoint the camp commanders, as plant directors of the socalled W-enterprises. These were enterprises within the concentration camps which through the years were strongly opposed by the concentration camp commanders.
That became evident when the camp commandants took away the best workers from these W-enterprises which were subordinated to the WVHA, and preferred to send these skilled workers to the workshops of the camps which were directed by the camp commandants themselves, and to their so-called "black" workshops, which they kept going secretly for all sorts of purposes. I believed that that by making the camp commanders responsible in the W-enterprises, I would then finally settle this problem. Thus, that skilled workers would now be sent by the commanders to wherever they could do their best work. For that reason I appointed the camp commanders as the heads of the enterprises. That was a fictitious title which had no effect on practical matters. In order to maintain that fiction, I gave them a monthly sum of money, some sort of salary, and this money had to come from the enterprises themselves.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess until Monday morning at 9:30.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess until 0930 hours Monday morning.
(Whereupon the Tribunal recessed at 1640 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the Matter of the United States of America against Oswald Pohl, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 19 May 1947, 0930-1630 hours, Justice Toms presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable Judges of Military Tribunal Number II.
The Tribunal is now in session.
There will be order in the Court.
May it please Your Honor, all defendants are present in Court.
OSWALD POHL -- Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION -- Continued BY DR. SEIDL:
Q Witness, the Prosecution introduced as Prosecution Exhibit No. 72 a Fuehrer Order of 27 September 1942 with reference to prisoners of war, Document NO-076, Document Book 3, page 107 of the German text and 109 of the English. I shall ask you now, witness, what was the effect of this order with reference to labour assignment of prisoners of war?
AAfter receiving this order, I contacted Obergruppenfuehrer Berger. I called him by telephone, and I asked him what we had to do not. He answered that this was not the opportune moment had not arrived yet and that he would inform me about it later on. However, I heard nothing at all about it later, and cooperation between the two main offices did not take place.
Q Witness, prior to that, within the framework of labor assignments of inmates, did you have anything to do with prisoners of war?
A I had nothing to do with prisoners of war. Prisoners of war were in the concentration camps. However, I did not know how and for what reason they had been sent to the concentration camps.
Q Exhibit No. 73 of the Prosecution is a letter of the Chief of Amtsgruppe D IV to the Chief of Amtsgruppe B of 15 August 1942 which has something to do with the clothing of inmates. Document NO 1990, Document Book 3, page 112, and page 102 of the English book. Can you make a statement with reference to that document?
A With reference to this document I can say nothing at all. That is addressed to Amtsgruppe B, and apparently it deals with the clothing which was to be put at the disposal of the inmates. I did not see the document at the time.
Q As Exhibit 75 the Prosecution introduced an affidavit by a certain Hermann Pister. It is Document NO 2324 Doc. Book III, page 121 of the German text and 109 of the English text. Among other things, it is asserted there that the commandants' meetings which took place every three or four months took place in the WVHA under your direction. Is that correct, witness?
A That is a mistake on the part of Pister. The commandants' meetings took place only in Oranienburg, to be precise, under the direction of Gluecks. Apparently Pister here mixes up the meetings of the commandants in the evening prior to the meeting you are talking about. Before the official meeting, in order to give them the opportunity to discuss certain things with me, I either invited them to supper in Berlin, if I had no time to go to Oranienburg myself, or I had supper in Oranienburg myself. The actual, official meetings always took place the following day in Oranienburg under Glueck's chairmanship. The only exception is the meeting which I have mentioned before which took place in April 1942 in Berlin and in the course of which I informed the commandants and the workshop managers of the draft law of March 1942.
Q In Pister's affidavit, in the same affidavit, it is asserted that at a Commandants' meeting you made an addition to the camp order to the effect that inmates who refused to work should be considered as enemies of the state and that the commandants had the right to sentence these people to death immediately and to carry out that sentence. Is that assertion of Pister correct?
A I never made such a statement. The punishment for the imates were provided for in the camp regulations. The camp regulations, as far as I remember, came out shortly before the war.
It was an official order which, precisely like any other official order, had to be agreed to by Himmler. For that the reason alone I could not change the camp statutes myself. On the basis of my official position, I did not have the right to take a measure which would entail drastic changes, and I never did make such a measure. Only Himmler could do that.
Q In this connection I have a few questions to ask you, witness, with reference to your position as a judicial authority. As Chief of the SS Main Office, you were also President of the Court for the officers and officials of the WVHA, insofar as they were part of the Wehrmachtsgefolge; is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q How many people were under your jurisdiction?
A 1500-1700. Those are the members of the WVHA.
Q If there existed suspicion of a punishable act with reference to one of the members of this office, then the SS and Police Court of Berlin was competent for that; is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Who took care of the factual matters which occurred in connection with your position as a judicial authority?
A The work was taken care of by the clerk-officer on my staff.
Q That was Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Schmidt-Gibenow?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Did your jurisdiction also extend to the commandants of the concentration camps, in your position as a Judicial Authority?
A No.
Q Who was in charge of the commandants of the concentration camps and the officers and the personnel of the camps?
A They were under the jurisdiction of the Higher SS and Police Leader, within whose competence the camp was.
Q And competent for the jurisdiction with reference to punishable acts which occurred in concentration camps or in connection with concen tration camps, were the SS and Police Courts within whose districts the concentration camps were; is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q And the sentence had to be approved by the respective Higher SS and Police Leader, or by the Reichsfuehrer SS himself, is that correct, depending on the rank of the person in question and the act itself?
A That is correct.
Q Witness, I shall now come to the complex of questions which are among the most important questions of this trial. That is the question of the concentration camps. We have already discussed a few documents within this complex. Those were the documents introduced by the Prosecution within the framework of Document Books Nos. 2 and 3, and they also concern the organization of the WVHA. I would like to ask you a few fundamental questions with reference to this whole complex of questions. When was the first concentration camp created in Germany, and what was its purpose?
A. The first concentration camp which I knew of, which I saw, was the concentration camp of Dachau. What other concentration camps existed apart from Dachau I do not know from my own knowledge. I heard that thirty-three smaller camps already existed in the shape of police camps in the middle of Germany, and apart from that in northern Germany near Esterwegen, E-s-t-e-r-w-e-g-e-n, which in itself was supposed to have been a justice camp, later on inmates were also billeted. The first camp, namely, Dachau, was a camp in which first of all were incarcerated the political opponents of the regime. After the seizure of power the Reich government endeavored to make sure that those persons who were opposing the new regime or who could oppose the new regime would not hurt the government by putting them in that camp. The first camp of this sort which I knew was Dachau.
Q. Who was it that created the Dachau camp and who was the first commandant?
A. The first commandant of Dachau was the then Oberfuehrer Eicke, who also took care of the installations.
Q. Will you give us a short description of the personality of that commandant, who later on became the inspector of the concentration camps with the rank of an SS Obergruppenfuehrer, or rather attained the rank of SS Obergruppenfuehrer?
A. Eicke, as his physique would show, was strong of will, hard to the point of ruthlessness, unafraid, Qualities which during the fighting time, that is, before we took over the power, led to strong political and police persecutions against Eicke. That was the reason why before 1933 he had to flee from Germany, and he spent a considerable time in Italy. Gradually a group was formed in Italy under Eicke's leadership. When, after the seizure of power, Eicke returned, he was put in charge of the installation and leadership of the first concentration camp by Himmler. As collaborators and helpers he used all those men with whom he had been together in Italy.
According to my conviction, with reference to the development of the concentration camps, it was a misfortune that man in particular was put in charge of their leadership, because Eicke, as I already mentioned before, in his nature already was very hard and ruthless.
He, and his man also, looked upon every political opponent as their personal enemy who had to be destroyed, and that opinion prevailed, even after Eicke's release, that is, shortly after the beginning of the war, within the ranks of those men who had gone through his school, in other words, within the ranks of the protective custody leaders and block and commando leaders. It prevailed secretly and it developed into those cruel acts we saw in concentration camps. Eicke himself considered or regarded the concentration camp as his own sphere of power and he guarded it against any intruder. I myself had quite a few clashes with him in my endeavor to change the administrative orders of the Reich for his particular sphere of work, or rather to put them into effect in his particular sphere of work. However, we skipped all these regulations and unfortunately he was supported rather than impeded in this by Himmler. Eicke, with reference to his mental capacity, was above the average. He was an industrious and hard-working man and he worked himself up from a simple private to a successful division commandant, or a general.
Q. Persons were turned into concentration camps on the basis of a protective custody order, isn't that correct? That protective order had its legal basis in the order of the 28th of February, 1933, which was issued as an emergency order by Hindenburg at the time. That particular regulation has the following title: "Decree of the Reich President for Order and Protection of the State". It is signed by Hindenburg, Adolf Hitler, the Reich Minister of the Interior, Frick, and Justice Minister Guertner.
MR. ROBBINS: It seems to me that this is an extremely leading question. Dr. Seidl has been talking here for three minutes, and then he asks the witness, "Is this correct?" I should think he could state his questions in more concise form.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the order of Hindenburg which you are reading - is that in the document book?
DR. SEIDL: Your Honor, this order, or rather decree, of Hindenburg is not in the document book. However, the International Military Tribunal in its sentence referred to that particular decree and that is the reason why I didn't think it necessary to read the text of this decree, which is rather short. The prosecution itself did not introduce the decree.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is that your question is too long. What do you want the witness to say? What do you ask the witness now?
DR. SEIDL: The witness, after I have told him the basic law of that particular custody decree, is to state what agencies could issue protective custody orders.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, that is the question. The witness may answer.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. Witness, you just heard my question. Would you tell me now who at the respective times was entitled to issue protective custody orders?
A. As far as I know, protective custody orders could only be issued by the Reich Security Office, in other words, the Secret State Police or Gestapo.
Q. And nothing changed in that matter until the end of the war?
A. I know of no change.
Q. In the concentration camps, in other words, there were prisoners who had been sent to the concentration camp on the basis of a protective custody order of the Gestapo or the Reich Security Office. The agency or office which was in close connection with these camps, in other words, was the Gestapo, or then later on the RSHA. It would be only too logical to put the concentration camps under the RSHA or the Gestapo. Why didn't that take place?
A. The reasons for that are not known to me. All I can give you is my presumption, and I presume that it is correct if I say that the reasons lie in the personality of Eicke and Heydrich.