A No, your Honor.
Q Well, his report shows that he had it on hand, doesn't he?
A These 53,000,000 were no longer in Lublin.
Q How about banknotes?
A The foreign currency was not left there either. That was new foreign currency which had meanwhile been delivered.
Q How many banknotes did you find there, approximately?
A Well, that is extremely difficult to say. It was a large parcel about this size, and most of it was Roumanian lei, but from all over the world also.
Q Did you find some American currency?
A Yes. Yes, also dollars, certainly.
Q Didn't your find some British pounds?
A Yes, certainly.
Q Didn't you find a large amount of French money?
A French money, yes; but I am unable to say very much about the details. Money was there from all over the world.
Q Didn't you even find some Cuban money there?
A I don't know anymore.
Q I'll ask you if you didn't find money from practically every known nation of the earth?
A From all over the world, your Honor, all countries.
Q I'll ask you further if you didn't find at the time you made this check as many as several thousand different kinds of items of personal property.
A No, the examination showed only the money. Other items were not present there. They were not in the treasury because the treas ury was in the official building of the garrison administration.
Q Didn't this man Wippern tell you then that this was stolen property?
A Wippern told me, "These are confiscated goods from confis Court No. II, Case No. 4.cations carried out by Police Leader Globocnik."
Q Didn't you then make up your mind that this was ill-gotten property and that after you had made your check you were so shocked until you almost ran away from there?
A Your Honor, for me as an official-
Q Just answer my question, please, and then you can make any explanation you desire.
A That is true, yes; but that it was stolen property was not known to me. I had to assume that it was confiscated goods which had been taken away from the new arrivals. To me as an official it was a confiscation which had already been carried out.
Q When you went over to that camp you saw practically all Jews there, didn't you?
A Well, I assumed that they were all Jews. I don't know who was locked up.
Q I'm talking about the ones that you saw.
A I only looked into the workshops where I saw people.
Q What about the ones that you saw in the workshops then?
A I assumed that they were all Jews, yes; but I'm not sure.
Q You knew they were foreign Jews didn't you?
A There were also German Jews there.
A The majority of them were foreign Jews?
A Yes, quite.
A You thought this property was taken away from them?
A Yes.
A That shocked you so until you hurriedly left there to get back?
A What shocked me, your Honor, was that so many people were interned there. That I saw for the first time.
Q The taking of the property didn't shock you?
A That was before when I counted the money, I saw that. Now I'm speaking only about the camps.
Q You asked this man Wippern what Action Reinhardt meant, didn't you, or what the letter "R" meant?
A The letter "R" stood for an account; and he didn't explain to me what it was about. He only said it was a cover-name for a secret matter.
Q Just answer my question. We can go along faster. I asked you, did you ask Wippern what the letter "R" meant? Did you ask him that or not?
A Yes.
Q All right, now, what did he say?
A "It is a cover-name for a secret matter."
Q That put you on guard right then that there was something wrong with it, didn't it?
A Yes, because why a cover-name.
A Yes, and why didn't you go back then and report it to Pohl, your superior of the main Office, and tell him that Frank had sent you over there on something you thought was crocked, and tell him that you wanted to know what it was? Why didn't you tell him that?
A My report to Pohl consisted of four or five points. I do not re member the details of the report, whether a statement on my part was made in that report.
I am no longer sure about that. I did not have an oral conversation with Pohl about this. I was not called to see Pohl.
Q Why didn't you report to Pohl that your immediate superior Frank had sent over to Lublin on a mission that you considered illegal and that is was covered up by a fictitious name Action R.? Why didn't you ask him about it?
A I reported that as far as the Department was concerned there was confiscated goods and books kept about it, under the name Account R.
Q That's all you did about it?
A Yes.
Q The reason you didn't do more about it was because you knew'all about it, didn't you?
A I knew nothing about that, Your Honor.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Just one last question on this matter, Witness. You say in your affidavit that you saw this report NO-061, which shows that 100,000,000 Reich Marks had been confiscated. You say, " I first saw this document at the start of the auditing, and it states the value of 100,000,000 Reich Marks. I know that these goods were taken away from Jews." In addition to the other statements that you repudiated, when you were asked by judge Musmanno, did you wish to repudiate this today?
A That document 061 was not in my hands when I did my auditing. When I did my auditing I probably had a similar list in my hands of those funds which on the day of the auditing were actually there. It had the same form as NO-161.
Q And it had the same total, didn't it?
A No, not the same total. I cannot recall the total. 100,000,000 marks cannot have been there as according to Document 063. I believe the total funds amounted only to 85,000,000 marks through the period between April 1942 until December 1943.
Q Witness, you couldn't have been that mistaken. Why did you sign an affidavit in which you said that you knew that 100,000,000 Reich Marks were taken away from the Jews and that you had seen this document? You couldn't have been that mistaken.
A Mr. Prosecutor, 100,000,000 were not there as the total. Enclosure 2 of Document NO-063 shows that a total of 85,041,000 marks were there.
Q I'm not talking about 063; I'm talking about 061.
A 061 is about something which had already been delivered.
Q I'm not asking if you saw this money, I'm asking you if you didn't see the report about the 100,000,000 Reich Marks as you say you did in your affidavit.
A No, I did not see the report.
Q I have only one other question to you, Witness, and that is with regard to your conferences with other members of the Amtsgruppen. How often did you confer with Frank?
A When I was in Berlin the conferences with Frank took place only when I had to report to him about something connected with the auditing court. Regular conferences did not take place. When I was outside Berlin after June 1943 I had no conferences at all with him.
Q How often did you confer with Fanslau?
A Fanslau as Office Group Chief from the middle of 1941, after which date Knebel, I saw him and talked to him four or five times about personnel questions in all matters connected with my office or perhaps even an auditing affair.
Q Was that before he became chief or after?
AAfterwards.
Q How often did you confer with him before he became Chief of A?
A I had no conferences with Fanslau because I had no points of contact with him.
Q Did you ever have a conference with Melmer?
A Melmer, no.
Q Did you ever speak to him?
A No.
Q Did you know him, when you saw him?
A Yes.
Q But you never spoke to him?
A I talked to him privately when I ran into him, of course. He lived next door to me.
Q Did you ever had a business conference with him about anything to do with the WVHA? You never talked about the WVHA at all?
A No.
Q Did you ever have a conference with anyone in Amtsgruppe B?
A D?
Q B.
A Yes, I talked to Office Group Chief Loerner.
Q About what did you talk to him?
A That concerned the auditing in Paris on the basis of which the head of the agency there was arrested.
Q Is that the only conference you ever had with Georg, Loerner?
A Yes. I had no other point of contact with him.
Q Only one conference as long as you were in the WVHA with Georg Loerner?
A Yes.
Q Did you confer with anyone else in B?
A These conferences were not of an official character. All I can remember is a conference with Britzen when he was still there. That concerned only a similar matter connected with, I believe, the auditing or something.
Q. Did you ever confer with anyone in C?
A. NO.
Q. You never had a single conference with anyone in Amtsgruppe C?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever have a conference with anyone in Amtsgruppe D?
A. In Office Group D I had one conference with Gruppenfuehrer Gluecks. This was about a letter from the SS Court in Weimar in the Koch affair; and it concerned the embezzling of money from PX cash boxes. As I had nothing to do with these matters, on the occasion of a trip to Berlin I handed the letter to Gruppenfuehrer Gluecks in Oranienburg.
Q. This was a matter that was being investigated by Morgan, wasn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. Why didn't you tell me that a while ago when I asked you if you know anything about the black market activities and the PX Morgen's investigation?
A. I did not deal with that matter myself, Mr. Prosecutor. As I was not competent, I handed it over to somebody else. I did not work on it.
Q. Didn't you have any other conferences with anyone in Amtsgruppe D?
A. No.
Q. You had only one conference, and that was with Gluecks, in the entire time you were there?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever confer with anyone in amtsgruppe W?
A. No.
MR. ROBBINS: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions from defense counsel? After recess.
THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal is in recess for 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. SCHMIDT:
Q. Witness, in the course of the cross examination by the Prosecution your political activity was discussed before you joined the SS and it was also mentioned then that you were active in the SA reserve. Can you tell us how you became a member of the SA reserve?
A. It was not a membership in the SA reserve. It wasn't as if I had been a member in the SA itself. In this state of affairs all those were used who were not members of the SA proper, or the SS, or of the party and it was the aim of the SA-reserve to organize the Expert Departmental chiefs as well as the Deputy Chief, the officials into contingents when any activities took place, We did not even have a uniform. It was a co-operative organization of the officials of the Party. It was first -
Q. If I understand you Correctly, witness, you went to the SA reserve without ever having applied to become a member?
A. Only through these cor-operative connections did we become members of the SA reserve.
Q. You spoke of co-operative membership, I understand that to mean that a co-operative membership in any institution can only take place when you have been admitted before to another organization; is that the case?
A. Yes, I was member of the German Civil Service as an official and as such I was a member of the Specialist Department. I should like to call that more of a union -- trade union.
Q. What year was that?
A. That was after the Hitler's seizure of power. I was used two or three times in blocking-off roads. Then I became ill and went to a hospital. I had never had any more service in the SA reserve because of illness. I was unable to do so.
Q. Did you ever call yourself a member of the SA?
A. No, I never called myself that. There was a difference between the SA and the SA-Reserve.
The SA performed military service; the SA Reserve blocked roads.
Q. In the cross examination mention was made of a political organization which called itself "Bavaria und Reich." Were you a member of that organization?
A. Yes.
Q. What year?
A. That was after the revolution. I think it must have been 1921. I believe it was 1921. It must have been at that time. I do not know exactly when we had to join. It was dissolved after a few years and unions were formed. One was called the Homeguard which was also a union of the Schutz und Trutzbund. The Union Bavaria und Reich was an active organization with monarchist tendencies. There were other unions, too. There was also the Voelkische' block, the national union which was formed under Oberregierumgsrat Puttman. There was a local group of the party which was formed by Gregor Stresser. There were so many parties one didn't know one's way around.
Q. And of what party were you a member?
A. I was a member of the Bund Bavaria and Reich only. We inspired the organization of the NSDAP, which was the Nationalist Program but that wasn't a political activity in that sense of the word. It was rather a measure against Communism, if I may say so.
Q. My question was, did this Union Bavaria and Reich have any political program?
A. No, it was a military organization. It was rather like the Homeguard. It was guarding one's own property and the property of the population.
Q. Does that statement apply or is it not correct if I say that this organization Bavaria and Reich had no program which could be compared with the later National Socialist Party program?
A. No, sir, not at all. It was of a Monarchist nature.
Q. Did I understand you correctly in the cross examination when you said that the Union Bavaria and Reich had been the predecessor of the National Socialist Party?
A. No; I would like to say this; it existed before Puttmann started the local Group and at that time it still existed with about ten men, next to the local group.
Q. During cross examination the question was asked whether you were a member of the General SS and on direct examination by me you answered "no" to the question. Do you want to change your answer?
A. No, it's correct. I never applied to become a member in the General SS. I have never had a membership card. For myself, I only was to become a member of the Special Task Group.
Q. Is it possible that at some time or other in writing your life history you said that you were a member of the General SS?
A. No, I did not say that. I did not call myself and did not consider myself a member.
Q. Furthermore, mention was made of whether it is correct that in February 1945 you were dismissed from the services of the SS. Is it correct that even before the capitulation you were dismissed from the service?
A. Yes. The dismissal in February was brought to the attention of the retirement authorities. I was removed from the pay roll. I was a state official and I had to be pensioned. I was pensioned and the retirement proceedings came before the actual pensioning.
Q. Who started the proceedings?
A. As far as I know -
Q. I would like to ask you make a pause before you answer so that the interpreter can follow.
A. I think by the Personnel Main Office because only that office could initiate the retirement of officers with my grade.
Q. And with regard to the beginning of your membership in the Waffen SS, what date was it when you joined the Waffen SS?
A. I took over a position provided by the budget on 1 April 1938.
Q. And before?
A. Promotions before had nothing to do with this. I only served in the SS Special Task Group.
Q. The entry date into the Waffen SS therefore was 1 April 1938, was it not, or is it correct to assume that it was an earlier date than that?
A. The date remains 1 October 1936 because we must include the time when my position was not listed in the budget, Otherwise, I would have been at a disadvantage, because my income as Civil Servant had already been much higher than that of an Obersturmfuehrer.
Q. This was an retroactive promotion?
A. We can call it that. On 1 October 1936 I was given a special promotion to Obersturmfuehrer because there was no position provided by the budget. However, I continued to receive the salary of an Inspector.
Q. During your cross examination you said that the files of your office had to be destroyed and you have already hinted that this had happened for official reasons -- was this destruction of files ordered in the Document Classification Code?
A. Yes. It had been agreed with the auditing court that all the files which dealt with the auditing court, except the cash books, could be destroyed. The cash books had to remain and had to be kept for ten years.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the witness mean that the files were destroyed in the regular course of business or were they destroyed to prevent capture?
A That was the normal office procedure: that had nothing to do with the enemy. I had left quite a number of files which I gave to the hospital at Hohenlychen; those files which were destroyed could only be destroyed with the approval of the Auditing Court.
Q Do you mean it was customary to destroy all old papers ever so often after they were no longer of use?
AAccording to the regulations that was customary and we were forced to do so because there was no room to keep them, but only as far as the Auditing Court approved of it.
Q. It had nothing to do with the approach of the enemy?
A No. It had nothing to do with it.
BY DR. SCHMIDT:
Q This destruction of files took place before the year 1945?
A Yes.
Q And it normally happened even earlier than that?
A Yes, from fiscal year to fiscal year the material which already had been dealt with by the auditing court was destroyed, but the cash books had to be kept.
Q Witness, the Prosecution asked you whether it was a part of your routine work to give information to the other departments of the WVHA, about the economic position of the various agencies rendering their accounts. Did your office ever compile such a report to other offices, or did you lend these files to other departments?
A No, never.
Q For such an action, would it not have been necessary that the Auditing Court should know about these matters, and that it should give its approval?
A No, I don't think so, but I can not imagine what reports they could have been.
Q Witness, would it have been possible for you at all from the bills which were submitted to you to exactly see the situation as far as the balance of the treasuries went and to form a judgment?
A The whole accounting system was not an economic department, or a commercial enterprise but the treasures were just offices where income and expenses were examined, but with the economy or the balance of other commercial matters this treasury had nothing to do.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Dr. Schmidt, you are surely not going to go into this entire subject of his duties and his activities, are you?
DR. SCHMIDT: I could not understand the translation, I am afraid. Please repeat the question.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: The purpose of your examining the witness at present is merely to clarify anything which may have arisen in cross examination and I don't suppose that you intend to re-examine him on matters which you have so thoroughly covered in your direct examination?
DR. SCHMIDT: No, Your Honor. It is not my intention to repeat myself, I only felt that during the cross examination this point was not clarified sufficiently, and, therefore, I asked these questions.
Q Witness, you said or at least I understood you to say, that after the examination at Lublin and during the time of your staying there, you thought that this foreign currency and jewelry and valuables could be the property of Jews who came from the Warsaw ghetto, and in this connection you mentioned the fact that through newspaper reports, it had become generally known that in Warsaw bloody actions had taken place. Do you know, witness, in giving us this information, that in Warsaw two actions of that kind took place - one which we have heard from in the document book of the Prosecution, Document Book XX, a heart-rending document. And another action which had nothing to do directly with the first action, and which took place very much later. The actions concerning the Warsaw ghetto, and about which a number of reports of the SS and Police Leader Stroop have been submitted, this action had taken place already in the year 1943, in April or May, according to these documents at least. The other action of which I am talking now took place, as far as I know, a whole year later -- during the year 1944. Which action are you talking about when you speak about the Warsaw actions which you referred to in Connection with the valuables and foreign currency at Lublin?
A I am not informed about the actions in Warsaw. I have read in these document books of the ghettos. However the ghetto at Lublin was also dissolved and these objects may have come from there; I couldn't know; I have seen no more information about this; whether some Jews were killed in Warsaw, I do not know, and whether any were killed in Lublin was also not made known to me. I don't know whether the action in Warsaw in 1942 was known or another action.
Q Is it known to you, witness, that the papers in Germany at that time gave reports about the action at Warsaw which was called " armed riots in Warsaw", and "armed combat by the police and units of the army"; and that this action which was reported by the newspapers took place only in 1944?
MR. ROBBINS: If Dr. Schmidt is going into this, he should let the witness give his own explanation and not make long speeches to the witness and then ask him - is it what you understood. They are extremely leading questions.
THE PRESIDENT: You see, Dr. Schmidt, you practically read the newspaper to him in your question.
DR. SCHMIDT: I only wanted to ask the witness which action he means. when, as I understood him from the cross examination, he says that he had assumed at the time that these valuables and foreign currency in Lublin came from Jews from the Warsaw ghetto.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you think -
DR. SCHMIDT: If Your Honor please, the witness then said that he had assumed it from the newspaper reports which were given about the riots and combat in Warsaw. These are two different matters which the witness has confused and I want to clarify it.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you think it is very important?
DR. SCHMIDT: I think so, Your Honor, because what the witness can have taken from newspaper reports that could only have been in the course of 1944, but certainly not in 1943, when he dealt with the auditing in Lublin.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean the events that he read about in the newspapers occurred after he came back from Lublin?
DR. SCHMIDT: According to my knowledge it was towards the end of 1944 that this riot in Warsaw took place, when the Russian front had come close to the Polish capital. The witness can only have connected this affair with the Warsaw affair after it was published in the newspapers.
MR. ROBBINS: Now that the witness has been told what he reads, it seem to me the simplest, the most direct way to get at the answer would be to ask him when and what did he read. That would have been the simplest thing in the first place, without telling him what he reads.
BY DR. SCHMIDT:
Q Witness, it is interesting - it would be interesting to hear from you - have you read in the papers about the Warsaw uprising, and when was it according to your memory; and what did you read.
A When it was, I can not remember today; and what it said in the papers I can not remember either.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Haensel, you know the Shakesperian play, "Much to do About Nothing?"
BY DR. SCHMIDT:
Q Witness, during the cross examination an affidavit was shown to you of the former SS Judge Morgen, and in this affidavit you are being connected with Illegal dealings on the black market. Can you say anything to that; how is it possible that Dr. Morgen Connected you with black market activities at all?
A I would like to know myself: how come this man Morgen connects me with the black market. I never had any dealings with the black market. When I was in foreign countries, that was about three or four times, and for my personal use during my travels I bought myself some things, then I bought them at the proper place at the economic office of the army, and at the normal PX price, and with the money provided for my journey.
But on the black market I never bought a thing. I had no foreign currency anyway.
Q During these journeys to foreign countries, did you make big purchases in these canteens or were they small matters?
A They were small matters for the journey or to bring back for somebody some cigarets perhaps or tobacco or chocolate, but never a suitcase, or something of that sort. I had no money. I would have liked to buy things.
Q Witness, in your official capacity were cases of corruption within the SS ever made known to you?
A My office did not deal with criminal investigations. There was a special committee dealing with corruption which had been founded for that purpose. My office could only act when the regular SS Court made the application for the auditing office to carry out an audit in this or that matter. The criminal aspect of it, was not my task. During my whole activity only once I was asked to carry out an audit of that nature. That was at the beginning of the war when the SS and Police Court in Cracow asked me to send an auditor in the matter of Obersturmbannfuehrer Leckebusch. This auditor later on became the collaborator of Morgen. That was the only time that the SS Court needed my services in furnishing an auditor, but an auditing just because some judge or a prosecutor or we ourselves were interested, that did not happen.
I had nothing to do with any legal procedures of any kind.
Q Witness, how do you account for Dr. Morgen, after you have given this explanation of your activities as to cases of corruption, how is it then that Dr. Morgen can state a matter of that nature against you? Did you have any arguments with Dr. Morgen of any kind?
A Never, I do not understand the whole matter. Morgen is apparently not well-acquainted with my tasks. otherwise he could not make a statement of that nature which I can only call a libelous statement. I have not seen Morgen since that discussion about a witness. I have never seen him since. He was the judge there. I only heard later on that he and Steinberg, who was then an auditor had been appointed to the corruption committee and were auditing in Buchenwald.
DR. SCHMIDT: I have no further questions, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions from defense counsel? Apparently not. Dr. Robbins, have you anything more?
MR. ROBBINS: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: This witness may be taken from the witness box to the dock.
DR. SCHMIDT: Your Honor, with this, for the time being my presentation of evidence has been concluded.
THE PRESIDENT: Next witness.
DR. HAENSEL: I would ask you, your Honor, to now deal with the case of Georg Loerner and I call the defendant Georg Loerner as a witness on his own behalf.
GEORG LOERNER, defendant, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Will you please raise your right hand and repeat after me? I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(Witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE MUSMANNO: You may be seated.
DR. HAENSEL: The questions which I want to ask the witness, Georg Loerner, are three fold. The first part is: Who are you? - how did you live? The Second part is - what did you do? And the Third part is: -What have you not done. This trinity occurred to me when I think of the old dogmatism about the contritio, the confessio and the satisfactio. Contritio has been translated by Martin Luther and is called Zerknirschung in German. That began with the surrender. The confessio is the matter itself and it will be dealt with during the next days, and a satisfactio is, according to Luther's translation, a purification.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q Count 1. Georg Loerner, give us your full name and the date of your birth.
A My name is Georg Loerner, and I was born on the 17th cf February 1899 in Munich.
Q Could you tell the Court something about your parents?
A by parents were good bourgeois. My father had a smith, a locksmith shop, a large locksmith shop. We were six children and this locksmith shop supported us quite Well.
Q And the first misery of your life was the death of your father, was it not? When was that?
A My father died on the 21st of February, 1910.
Q How old were you at that time?
A I was eleven.
Q And what did you do?
A I was a pupil in the fifth class of the elementary school, and I was just about to go to the secondary school.
Q What influence did the death of your father have on you, and on your whole family, and on your further life?
A The death of my father hampered the development of our life and our finances deteriorated, and the family had to live in lower circumstances. Then the planned studies of my brother and my own studies could no longer be carried out and therefore, I left after the sixth year the secondary school. In 1916 I entered the bank house of Sinn and Company.
Q Herr Loerner, Sinn and Company, was that banking house a Jewish firm?
A Yes.
Q You had no doubts about entering a Jewish firm?
A No.
Q How was it during the first World War? What influence did that have on you?
A In June 1917 I was drafted into the infantry. After the normal basic training and after finishing the rifle course and the heavy machine gun training in January or February 1918 I came to the front, the western front.
There I took part in the fight, hard fighting, and on 10 July 1918, two days before I was to enter an officers' training course, during combat near Reims I was wounded.
Q Did this wound have any effect on your physical welfare?
A Yes. In 1918 I was retired as a veteran with an 80% disability and my heart had been seriously damaged.
Q What did you do after the war?
AAfter the war I began studies at the commercial training school for economy from 1919 until 1921. In 1921 I passed my examinations and became a certified merchant, a Diplom Kaufmann, merchant with a diploma. At the same time I entered the Munich branch of the Commerz and Privatbank, the Commerce and Private Bank, and on the 21st of January 1923 I entered the enterprise of my brother as commercial manager.
Q Is that your brother, Hans, who is also one of the defendants?
A Yes, my third brother, Peter, died already in 1901.
Q How as your collaboration generally?
A It was generally very good. We understood each other well and for this reason we agreed that I should enter his firm.
Q What was the development of this firm?
A The firm, after the end of the inflation, had to be started again from the beginning. From that time, however, it developed satisfactorily, but of course, during the depression in the years 1928 and 1929 it was impeded, and through the bankruptcy of two large debtors in the spring of 1930, it had to be liquidated.
Q Did that happen often?
AAt that time it happened very often indeed.
Q What happened after this liquidation?
AAfter this I had no work at all, as my wound, my leg gave me considerable trouble and at this point I had to have an operation which was the tenth operation. The Chief of the Surgical Clinic in Munich, Geheimrat Lechser, operated on me himself and he succeeded in making my leg flexible again.