Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Do you see the letter there, witness, which you signed, dated 21 October 1944 to the Commandant of the Auschwitz Concentration Camp?
A You mean the letter dated 21 October, don't you?
Q Yes?
A Yes, I have the letter before me. I signed it.
Q And does this help your recollection any about the conference that took place there on the 18 October?
A Yes, I already confirmed that part.
Q And you now recall that the allocation of labor was discussed, is that right?
A No, I did not remember all those things. I really don't
Q I asked you if you remember now?
A Yes, I do.
Q Tell us, if you will, what kind of work was being carried out here at "Getewent"?
A The "Getewent" was a factory for the production of radio tubes, and similar things. It was not part of the DWB, but were subordinated to the personal supervision of Pohl.
Q It was included in the group of office under Staff-W, wasn't it?
A No, it was not part of Staff-W. It was independent, but all the help that was given them went through Staff-W.
Q You say it was immediately under Pohl?
A It is perhaps not quite correct. It was a company which was closely connected with the Reich Economy Ministry, according to my recollection, because the Reich Economy Ministry was the one that was giving the money. We did not participate in it financially.
Q You see the cable or the telegram from Cords to you, which is part of document 3839?
A Yes, I see the document.
Q Tell us why it was that it was necessary for, or convenient to have a fast way of transmitting messages between you and the Concentration Camp Gross-Rosen? Why is he telling you this?
A Probably the mail communications were already disturbed, as I Court No. II, Case No. 4.see here, the date is 3 March.
In other words, it was pretty close to the end of the war.
Q Was it necessary for you to communicate often with the GrossRosen Concentration Camp?
A That has nothing to do with that, Mr. Prosecutor, You see, this is an information that there is a possibility of communication with the "Getewent" by making an agreement, and that is all the information right here. That is the only thing it shows.
Q That does not answer my question. I ask you if you frequently sent messages to the Concentration Camp Gross-Rosen, or received them?
A Not Concentration Camp Gross-Rosen, possibly, something could have been sent to "Getewent" through the Concentration Camp Gross-Rosen by the radio station. That is the way it is expressed in the letter, too. I don't believe we finally succeeded in doing so, though.
Q You did contact with "Getewent" quite often, didn't you?
A Not often, I would not say.
Q You see your letter of the 31 October 1944 to the "Getewent"?
A Yes, I do.
Q It is initialed by you, is it not, sent out by you?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q This is part of Document NO-3839. Will you read the subject matter: "Sending of an expert in construction of - -" what is that next word?
A I believe it is explained in the letter. It states, "The deputy of the Chief of Office Group C, SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Schleif, was asked to send an expert in construction of adits to Reichenau in order to carry out an expert examination of your intended construction of an air raid tunnel." In other words, for air-raid precaution.
THE PRESIDENT: Tell us what "Adits" means, then we will take a recess. "An expert in construction of adits." What does that mean?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I don't find that passage.
MR. ROBBINS: Your letter to "Getewent" dated 31 October 1944.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: 21st.
MR. ROBBINS: 31st, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: 31st, yes.
MR. ROBBINS: The part you just read.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
THE WITNESS: Yes. The translation is wrong in the document, Your Honor. It should be "Expert in construction of shafts, or tunnels, rather than "audits."
MR. ROBBINS: Shafts?
THE WITNESS: Shafts. This is an expert who builds air raid precaution tunnels, and he is an expert in that manner, and that is all.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes.
(Recess.)
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, was the Getewent Company a part of Amtsgruppe W or an SS industry?
A No.
Q What was the nature of this company?
AAccording to its name it was the company for technical and economical development, and it was included in the program for the production of radio tubes.
Q And can you tell us whether your connection with this matter was in your capacity as Chief of Staff W or was this another special project?
A Well, one can call it a special assignment.
Q And can you give us-- I withdraw the question. Did I understand your testimony to be, witness, that you had never visited a concentration camp?
A No, I testified here that I had inspected the concentration camp Dachau.
Q And is that the only camp you ever visited?
A I only visited plants which were located near concentration camps.
Q Now, let's not have any misunderstanding. I am not talking about the inner circle of a concentration camp. I am talking about the camp generally. I ask you if you ever visited any such camp?
A No, I never entered the protective custody camp.
Q I am not talking about the protective custody camp; I am talking about the concentration camp as a whole.
A I entered plants of concentration camps insofar as they belonged to Amtsgruppe W.
Q Tell us which ones those were.
A I have already stated I was at Oranienburg and at Flossenburg. I was at Mauthausen; I was at Dachau; and I was at Auschwitz.
Q You were several times in the outer ring of the concentration camp Court No. II, Case No. 4.in Sachsenhausen, weren't you?
A I was at Sachsenhausen on two or three occasions.
Q So when you said the other day, yesterday, that you hadn't visited a concentration camp, you just meant the inner circle of the camp?
A I meant the protective custody camp, not the work shops.
Q And you visited; you were inside the outer ring of the camp in Auschwitz?
A I was in the area where the economic enterprises were located.
Q How many times were you there?
A I was in Auschwitz on two occasions.
Q What time; what date?
A Once in January 1944.
Q Then you went to Posen and Litzmannstadt?
A No.
Q A different trip?
A That was a different trip.
Q When else were you in Auschwitz?
AAs far as I can recall, it was a few months later.
Q Did you see inmates working when you were there at Auschwitz, January, 1944?
A Yes, with the DAW. I audited the bookkeeping there, and in the same building there were also some inmates working.
Q The second time was roughly February or March, would you say that?
A Well, I can't give you the exact month.
Q And while you were there you didn't hear anything about a gas chamber or a crematorium?
A No.
Q You know now from the documents from the evidence in the case that at that very time thousands of Inmates were being burned to death there. Was there any conceivable explanation for the fact that you didn't hear about it; you didn't see smoke or smell the burning bodies that have been described here?
A No.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Did you at any time hear that there were gas chambers in concentration camps?
A No, I only heard of it after the war.
Q Did you hear of chambers called delousing chambers?
A Delousing chambers? No.
Q Never heard of that word?
A No. Yes, I did hear the word, however, that refers to real delousing facilities.
Q You didn't ever see in your documents the term "X huts"; that didn't come to your attention?
A The word "expert" is used repeatedly.
Q No, "X huts," "X barracks".
A You mean X barracks? No.
Q You never heard of that term?
A I don't know what it means at all, not even today.
Q And you never heard at any time that crematoria were in concentration camps?
A No.
Q How many times did you visit Mauthausen?
A In Mauthausen? I was there on one occasion. I can still recall the date. This was in the fall or the winter of '43 to '44.
Q It was the first part of 1944, wasn't it?
A I believe that it was at the end of '43. That is more probable.
Q You didn't hear anything there about gassing, at Mauthausen?
A No.
Q Did you see inmates working there?
A Yes. First I went to the bookkeeping department, and afterwards I went through the barracks and I saw inmates and Germans working there.
Q How many times did you visit Flossenburg?
A I was in Flossenburg only once.
Q When was that?
A That must have been in 1945. It must have been in January or February of that year.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q 1945?
A Yes, 1945.
Q Who went with you?
A Dr. Karoli was with me, and as far as I can recall I was also accompanied by Obersturmbannfuehrer Mummenthey.
Q And did you see inmates working there?
A Yes. I have already testified about that yesterday.
Q This was February, 1945. You didn't see anyone at that time who looked underfed or mistreated?
A No. I couldn't see that at all.
Q How many times did you visit Dachau other than the trips that your classes took?
A I was at the Food G.m.b.H. at Dachau, and also at the DAW enterprise which was located in the camp. I was there altogether on two occasions.
Q When was that?
A That was in '43 and '45.
Q What month in '45?
A I think it must have been at the same time when I was at Flossenburg; it must have been around February.
Q And you visited the German Food Company there, the SS enterprise?
A Yes.
Q On both occasions?
A In both cases, yes.
Q And what other SS industry did you visit?
A Well, I also visited the DAW.
Q You didn't see any signs of undernourishment in Dachau in February '45?
A No.
Q How many times did you visit Lublin?
A I didn't see Lublin at all. I don't know the enterprise there at all, and I never visited the Osti there.
Q Never visited any Osti enterprise?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A No.
Q How many times did you visit Stutthof?
A I have never been in Stutthof.
Q Were you ever in Natzweiler?
A No, I wasn't in Natzweiler either.
Q Didn't you visit the outer area in Natzweiler?
A No, I wasn't in that vicinity at all. I don't even know where the place is located.
Q Did you visit Neuengamme?
A No, I have never been in Neuengamme.
Q Did you visit Nordhausen?
A No.
Q Gross-Rosen?
A Yes, I was at Gross-Rosen on one occasion.
Q I thought you said you had told us all the camps that you visited. When were you at Gross-Rosen?
A I was in Gross-Rosen in 1944. I went to take care of some auditing work there.
Q Who went with you on that occasion?
A It must have been an auditor, but I don't recall his name any more.
Q Did you go to Bergen-Belsen?
A No.
Q And do I understand your testimony to be that it was your conviction that all of the inmates who were working for the SS industries were convicted criminals?
A Convicted criminals? No.
Q How do you think they got into the concentration camps?
A I didn't quite understand the last word.
Q How do you think they got into the concentration camps if they weren't convicted, they weren't given a trial? I understood your testimony yesterday to be that you thought that they had all been given a trial.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A Yes, however, I did not consider them criminals because police regulations during the war, after all, were certainly severe.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q You thought that they had all been convicted, is that right, and been given a trial--everyone in the concentration camps and those who were working for the SS industries?
A I had to assume that, yes.
Q You didn't assume when the question of the Litzmannstadt Ghetto was discussed, when it was considered whether or not to turn this place into a concentration camp, the entire city. You didn't consider that all of those people were convicted criminals, did you, convicted and given a trial?
A Well, that is the reason why I considered this measure to be inhumane, and I did everything to prevent it.
Q We will come hack to that again later.
Is that the only case you ever heard of where an entire city was turned into a concentration camp, or was planned to be turned into a camp?
A Yes.
Q Did you think that all of the people who were working for the Osti industry--incidentally, will you turn to a document that we have discussed before, in Book 14; Exhibit 384. It is on page 16 of the German, page 19 of the English. NO-1039. Turn to the place where the purposes of the Osti industry are discussed. This is Hohberg's memoranda describing the various industries. Do you have the description in front of you of the Osti industry, where it says-
A Yes, I have it before me.
Q "... A newly founded company for the exploitation of the balance--" mind you, the balance--" of Jewish property and of Jewish labor in the Government General."
Did you think that all of this Jewish labor in the concentration camps--did you assume that all of these people had been given a trial?
A Well, I assumed that, as far as conditions in Germany were concerned.
Q Well, did you assume it also for conditions outside of Germany, this talking about the Government General? You knew these people were Court No. II, Case No. 4.in concentration camps, didn't you?
And that they were working for one of the WVHA industries?
A May I point out that I have never seen this document.
Q Well, you told us yesterday, witness, that you had seen it, that it was turned over to you by Hohberg along with the unfinished business, all a part of the same document-
JUDGE PHILLIPS: What page are you talking about, Mr. Robbins?
MR. ROBBINS: It is on page six of the English; that is, page six of the English document 1039.
WITNESS: I didn't say that. I didn't say that this document had been handed to me.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q In your testimony, is today the first time that you have ever seen this document?
A This document of the 10th of April, 1943, I have only seen here in the documents.
Q Well, let us make sure we are talking about the same document. This is the document that sets-- First, let me ask you if you have seen the part of the document that lists the capital and turnover of the economic enterprises of the WHA?
A Yes, I have seen that.
Q And do you see Hohberg's letter of the 10th of April, 1943, enclosing a description of these same industries?
A No, I do not recall ever having seen this document before.
Q And you didn't know that the purpose of the Osti Industry was the exploitation of the remainder of Jewish property and Jewish labor in the Government General?
A I knew that Jews were employed there; however, just what the production conditions were and where the stock was coming from I did not know.
Q You knew that they were concentration camp inmates, and that they were working for Osti?
A They were in labor camps and also in concentration camps.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q And you assume that all of these Poles and foreigners had been duly convicted? I just want to understand your testimony. Is that right?
A I don't assume that today.
Q You thought that was the case then?
A I didn't know it then.
Q Did you ever think about it?
A I never thought over these things.
Q Did you at any time hear of any violent acts of the SS? Acts of violence, destruction?
A No.
Q You never heard of any synogogues being destroyed by the SS?
A Yes, of course, I heard about that.
Q You didn't hear about other-
A However, may I point out I do not know that this was done by the SS.
Q You didn't hear about that?
A I heard that synogogues were destroyed in 1938; however, I never heard that this had been done by the SS. I don't even know that the SS participated in that.
Q Did you hear at any time about the SS destroying synogogues, or public property?
A No, that is completely unknown to me.
Q You never heard about Jews being rounded up in the streets, put on transports, trucks, and so forth?
A Well, these things were discussed here very frequently. However, I can state that I never saw anything like that before. However, it came to my knowledge in the course of the war that resettlement was being carried out on a very large scale by the so-called Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle, which brought Germans to the Eastern territories; and I know that Jews were also resettled. After all, various minorities were resettled to Germany, and these ethnic groups were brought to Germany. I heard about that.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q You knew that was being carried out by the SS?
A Whether this was done by the SS, I don't know.
Q You never heard of the Race & Settlement Office of the SS? You didn't know that was one of the Main offices, one of the Hauptamts?
A I beg your pardon, Mr. Prosecutor, you just asked me about resettlement, and I was thinking of the Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle. Just how much of this work was done by the SS, and whether the SS supervised and controlled this measure, I can't tell you in detail. However, the Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle was an institution of the SS.
Q So you knew then that agencies of the SS were deporting Jews out of Germany, is that right?
A I don't think that the SS did that. I was certainly done by the police authorities.
Q You didn't know that that was under the supervision of the Race & Settlement Office, and the RSHA?
A No.
Q You didn't know that?
A No, I didn't know that.
Q What did you think the Race & Settlement Office did?
A I never had any contact with the Race & Settlement Office, and had nothing to do with the office officially. I didn't know its field of work at all.
Q Did you know there was such an office?
A Yes, I knew its name.
Q Do I understand your testimony to be that the individual office chiefs of Amtsgruppe W were Pohl's deputies, as far as their own sphere of work was concerned?
A I was not Pohl's deputy. I believe that has been clarified in the course of this trial.
Q I didn't ask you that, witness; just listen to my question.
Is it your testimony that the individual office chiefs, the Hauptschefs--or the Amtschefs, rather--were Pohl's deputies as far as their spheres of work were concerned. Is that what you told us?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A I didn't quite understand the translation--the beginning of your question.
Q Is it true that the Amtschiefs in Amtsgruppe W were Pohl's deputies as far as their sphere of work is concerned? Is that how it was regarded in the office?
A I can't say whether they were deputies. After all, that is a legal question. They were office chiefs and they received their orders from Pohl in his capacity as chief of the Main Office.
Q Let me ask you this: Did you see any legal memoranda in the office describing the functions of the office chiefs?
A The tasks of the office chief are contained in the standard order of procedure which was issued on the 24th of November. I don't know about anything else.
Q Does that correctly set out their functions and their duties and their powers?
A May I take a look at the document, please?
Q It is on page 81 of Book XIV in the German, page 85 in the English, Exhibit of this document, which is NO-851, the basic document in the case, I believe, is not complete in the photostatic copy. I think the reason for that is that it's marked Copy 41. I have found a copy marked 14, which I believe is plainer and I would like to offer that into evidence. Let me show you the original, Witness. This is number NO-3170, and I should like to mark it as Prosecution's Exhibit 595 for identification. This order is signed by Pohl, isn't it?
A Yes, it is signed by Pohl.
Q And it is certified as being correct by you?
A Yes, it is correct.
Q The duties of the office chiefs are dealt with in paragraph 11 and paragraph 12. Can you tell me if that correctly describes their functions?
A May I start from the last paragraph? I would like to refer first to paragraph 13. With regard to this paragraph I want to say that the diligence of responsible and conscientious business man was part of the duties of an office chief. That is correct.
Q Are 11 and 12 also correct?
A The first sentence refers to the fixing of salaries; as a rule they were managers of enterprises within their sphere of competence.
Q You are talking about 11 now?
A No, I am referring to paragraph 12.
Q You say the first sentence is correct in paragraph 12?
A Yes, it is correct.
Q How about the second sentence?
A Whether the office chiefs in every case in the past before, this matter went into effect, had the right to issue directives to the enterprises, I am unable to answer.
Q Couldn't you see that from the documents that were in the office? Didn't you see orders issued by the Amt Chiefs to the enterprises?
A For the most part it was so that the office chiefs at the same time would be the business managers.
Q This is talking about the contrary situation, those where they have no functions according to commercial law. That means when they are not business managers. It says they still have the right to issue orders. That's true, isn't it?
A Yes, well, that is stated here for the future. However, in the past that had not been exactly clearly defined. I cannot say that.
Q You heard your witness Karoli say that this just confirmed the pre-existing practice. That is true, isn't it? This document just confirms what had been going on all along.
A That they carried out executive business in their official capacity is correct. However, these were not supposed to overlap with commercial law.
Q And paragraph 11, does this correctly represent the practice in the office?
A No.
Q In what respect does it not?
A The first sentence is correct.
Q The part which concerns you, I suppose, is not correct, is that right?
A The second sentence does not correspond to what had been the use in the past.
Q It's not true that the functions were to be done after consultation with the with the Chief W, if possible in his presence and at regular intervals?
A Well, that is a new regulation there. After all I did not hesitate to take the responsibility and I wanted to succeed that the office chiefs should do that to a greater extent so that I would be better informed about the financial and economic matters and particularly all matters which refer to financial dealings.
Q Does the last sentence in the paragraph represent the practice, that constant liaison is to be maintained by the office chiefs with Chief W?
A Well, that is correct in principle. This concerns all measures, for example, the regular declaration of the conversion tax and income tax that is why liaison was required. It was in order to check the balance sheets.
Q I think it was paragraph 10 that was not clear, incomplete, on the copy that you had originally; is that correct as it stands now?
A The Staff W was subordinated to me.
Q Is there anything in paragraph 10 that is not correct, that is what I am asking, that does not represent the practice?
A I never carried out any executive business with regard to the various offices.
Q That power was given you by this basic order, wasn't it? You had that authority, whether or not you exercised it?
A This was to apply for a future time, yes.
Q It doesn't represent the practice that was pre-existing?
A No, this was a program for the future.
Q Now will you look at paragraph 8 and tell us if that is correct and represents the practice before and after the order?
A It is stated here that the Chief W is the economic advisor to the Chief of the Main Office. Pohl repeatedly consulted me in economic questions. However, this was mostly in the field of auditing and taxes, because in other fields I did not posses sufficient knowledge and it was mere theory as far at that went.
Q Witness, I want to show you a document and ask you if this correctly sets out a part of your functions in the office. This is Document NO-3830, which I will mark as Prosecution Exhibit 596. Do you have the document, Witness?
A I am just reading it now, Mr. Prosecutor. Yes, I was charged with the tasks which appear in the document.
Q And were these duties carried out? Does this represent the practice?
A May I refer to Point 2. It says here that all applications are to be addressed to me through the Chief W. That is to say, we just handled these things on a temporary basis. They just passed through our office.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q What document is that referring to?
A This refers to Article 2.
Q I mean, what is meant in Article 2 by, "Requests are addressed to Pohl via you."
A This refers to all requests which are enumerated here in Articles 1 to 6.
Q I don't think I ever received an answer to my previous questions from you, witness, as to whether it was just considered in the office that the Amtschiefs were Pohl's deputies?
A I can't answer this question in the affirmative, because after all they were subordinate to him and they did not deputize for him. Pohl's deputy was defendant Loerner.
Q I should like to show you another document, witness, and ask you if this also correctly defines your powers. I think you have already told us that the Amtschiefs had no military or disciplinary authority, is that right? Neither Mummenthey nor Bobermin had any such powers?
A I am only informed about my own disciplinary authority. I did not possess any, and, I think, I did not testify to anything like that.
Q The record will show that you did testify on that. Have you seen this document before?
A I can't say that yet, I have to look at it first.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is the author of the document, Mr. Robbins?
MR. ROBBINS: I believe Dr. Hoffman -- Dr. Hoffman, I believe. Perhaps the witness can help us out. It has Hoffmann's initials at the top of the document. He was in the legal department under the defendant Baier. This is Document NO-3829, and I will mark it as Exhibit 597 for identification.
Have you seen it before, witness?
A May I point out that this is a document of the 31st of October 1944. It is a draft, and it is not signed. I consider it impossible that these notes ever went into effect. However, I will have to read them first.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Can you tell me now whether or not you have ever seen the document before? (Pause) Witness, just-
A It is possible that it comes from Hoffmann, and it is possible that I may have seen it. However, I cannot say that for certain.
DR. FRITSCH (For Defendant Baier): Your Honor, I object to the presentation of this document. I don't think that it is relevant to the case, nor that it has any value as evidence. It has no probative value at all. It has a date, but no signature. I have a photostatic copy before me, and it is not signed either.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, this, according to the affidavit - certificate - annexed to the document, is a captured document by the military forces, Allied Expeditionary Forces, and I think on its face it shows that it was prepared in the WVHA office. I think that the witness can identify the document and tell us more about it.
DR. FRITSCH: I cannot make a statement with regard to what Mr. Robbins just said because I simply didn't get the translation. There is so much noise in the channel that it is very difficult to understand anything.
MR. ROBBINS: The certificate annexed to the document shows that it was a captured document. It was taken from the files, the original files. I think the document shows on its face that it was prepared in Amtsgruppe W, has Dr. Hoffmann's typed initials on it, and I believe that the witness can further identify the document.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I do not agree with this statement. Please understand my statement correctly. After all, documents might be submitted here which should have been manufactured anywhere, at any place. After all, it must be possible for us to identify facts from the document itself. This document may have been written by anybody at any time.
MR. ROBBINS: As a matter of fact, I believe the document contains some hand writing as well as typed material.
THE PRESIDENT: Hand writing and what?
MR. ROBBINS: Hand writing on the document, as well as typed material.