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.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is that the document is not shown to be authentic. I think the certificate of the Berlin Document Center shows that it was a captured document found in German Archives, which would make it admissible. Perhaps some questions from the witness will determine whether it's authentic.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Can you make out the hand writing at the bottom of the first page, witness?
A It is very unclear. It is stated here, "To the files -- Service Instructions -- Standard Orders of Procedure." That is what is stated here, in the hand writing.
Q Can you tell us whose hand writing it is?
A It is possible that I wrote this myself; however, I cannot say that with certainty.
Q Do you remember seeing this document, witness; do you have knowledge of its contents?
A It is possible. I might point out that this note was not used in any way, otherwise it would have been signed and not have been put into the files.
Q Will you look at the third - the fourth paragraph, where it says that "the Office Chief is the deputy of the Chief of the Main Office as regards the management of the economic enterprises subordinate to his office" and "has the power and the duty to issue directives to them."
A Where is it? I can't find it.
Q The fourth paragraph on the first page. As a matter of fact, it's the fifth paragraph. "The Office Chief is the Deputy", it starts with.
A Yes, "The Office Chief is the deputy of the Chief of the Main Office." I found it now.
Q And I will read the last words of that paragraph: "...and has the power and the duty to issue directives to them." Does this paragraph represent the practice in Amtsgruppe W, as far as you know?
A No, this was a draft which the legal expert, Dr. Hoffmann, noted Court No. II, Case No. 4.down for himself.
Whether he did this with any purpose in mind, whether he just wanted to note down a thing which already existed, I cannot say. In any case, this note was not signed, and he probably did that himself as a legal expert. After all, it was included in the files, that is to say, it was not utilized in any way. No action was taken. These are just Dr. Hoffmann's views, and he is the author of this note.
Q Will you turn to the second page; you see the "Limits of Plenary Powers." Number 1, Military. Number 2, Economic.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Mr. Robbins, shouldn't the witness know whether this document represents the status of facts as they actually existed?
MR. ROBBINS: I understood him to say that it did not. Perhaps I misunderstood.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: He said, whether this document represents the office of the personnel views as to what should be done, or whether they represent the facts as they existed, he did not know. The latter situation, it seems, would come within the purview of his knowledge that it did not.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Let me ask you again, witness, regarding the fifth paragraph. Does this represent the actual practice in the office? Does it represent the powers and the duties of the office chiefs?
AAre you referring to the paragraph which begins with, "The Office Chief is the deputy of the Chief of the Main Office as regards the management of the economic enterprises subordinate to his office." Is that what you are referring to?
A Yes; and the next sentence, also, that he "has the power and the duty to issue directives."
A He is the responsible leader not as regards commercial law, but as regards military law, and towards them he is obliged and authorized to give instructions and orders. With this, the author of this note apparently wants to indicate the military character.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess now, Mr. Robbins.
(A recess was taken until 1335 hours.)
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 24 July 1947).HANS BAIER - Resumed.
CROSS EXAMINATION - Continued.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, I just want to spend a moment on this document that you have in your hands, NO 3839, Exhibit No. 597. You had time to read from the document since we were discussing it?
A Yes, I read it through.
Q Is there anything in this document that does not correspond to the practice in an office, to the actual facts?
A Well, the practical use of the authority to issue a command as is being dealt with here, generally speaking, theoretically, according to my opinion, by the chiefs of offices were very restricted, and according to my opinion they could only give military orders when they referred to trips for soldiers, and for motions, or movements, and for similar things. As far as I was concerned, the business side of it, or the commercial side by law had to be decisive, because there they had to comply with legal regulations, so that any directive with economic influence could not be issued as an order if it was against the prevailing legal regulations. Then the other matter, the word "representative" on page 2 is correct, because the chief of office, let's assume of Amtsgruppe-A, was not a representative of the Amtsgruppen chief there. As an Amtsgruppen chief he had as his authority, his field of tasks, which were within his sphere. The word "representative" or "deputy" here does not seem to be correct to me.
Q Is that all?
A The letter said something here about restricting the authority for disciplinary power, or disciplinary authority. It can be seen from this that the chief officers did not have the authority to issue disciplinary orders, with the exception of W-1 and W-2.
Q Do you know, however, that they did have such power, do you not?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A I know they had no such power. We see here, however, that W-1 and W-2 have an authority which I did not know of before; that must have been an order prior to my time. Personally, I had nothing to do with the disciplinary matters, because personally I did not have any disciplinary authority either. So far as the remaining is concerned, the man -
Q You mean you, yourself, could not issue a military command to any one at all?
A I was speaking about the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority is the possibility to punish a person. If a person did something that was wrong, then I could issue a military order. The other question was whether my order would be complied with, because I would have disciplinary authority.
Q What kind of military orders were you permitted to issue, and to whom?
A There were no regulations about that. This was a matter of telling somebody just to see or do something. In my capacity as a deputy, with participation in the auditing department, I could only do what was contained in that law.
Q You are just referring to yourself as deputy or plenipotentiary. You were referring -
A Well, only so far as the question was concerned, in how far a soldier can issue orders. One can not directly control economy with orders.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Witness, you were senior colonel in the Waffen-SS, were you not?
A No senior colonel.
Q Just a colonel?
A Yes.
Q You were Chief of Office of Staff-W?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q You had certain subordinates under you in your office, did you not?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A Yes, indeed.
Q Now you do not mean to tell us that you as a colonel in charge of an office could not give orders and directives in a disciplinary way to those subordinate to you?
A I could give them disciplinary orders. I could tell them, for instance, when on a field task, what work they were to do, and I could also order them to do what should be done. I could do that as a supervisor, or as their superior.
Q You could discipline those, could you, who refused to obey your orders as a colonel?
A No, I could not do that. As a commander of the school, I did have disciplinary authority, but not in Staff-W, because that was an economic task; I had no disciplinary authority whatsoever in case an NCO would not have obeyed my order. I would only have been able to report that to the person who was his disciplinary superior. I could not do that.
Q Who was that you reported to?
A That was the man in charge of the staff company. It is contained in the document, The Disciplinary Authority of every man and a NCO was with the Staff Department. Therefore, I had to make a report to the Staff Department about the man who had done this and that, and that the man should be punished.
Q You reported that to a non-commissioned officer, and still you were a colonel?
A No, that is not what I said.
Q Then I did not get your translation correctly. Then give it again.
A If a NCO did not comply with orders, then I would still not have been able to punish him. All I would have been able to do was to report him to a man on the Staff who would have the disciplinary authority to punish him, because he was subordinate to me.
Q Any man? Who was it. Give the name of the man? You were Chief of Staff. You ought to know who it was?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A The man in charge of the Staff Department was the one who had the disciplinary authority in the WVHA.
Q Well, who was that?
A The man in charge of the Staff-W, was, I believe, Sturmbannfuehrer Bosen.
Q What was his rank?
A Sturmbannfuehrer Major. However, I could not be sure he was the man in charge of it then. It did change once and awhile. That applies to all members of the WVHA. Personally I had no disciplinary authority whatsoever.
Q. So your rank of colonel was just for the purpose of pay? You had no authority so far as discipline was concerned and your rank was just for the purpose of pay?
A. No, Your Honor, it was a little different. I already stated before that when I became commanding officer of the school I was with a military agency and there I had disciplinary authority. But I didn't have disciplinary authority in Staff W. I had no disciplinary authority. Disciplinary authority has to be specially granted.
Q. You want us to believe that you, a full colonel in the WaffenSS, if a subordinate disobeyed your orders or refused to obey your orders you couldn't punish him in any way at all except to report him?
A. Quite so. That is correct.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. The document that we have just been discussing, NO-3829, Exhibit 597, in so far as the authority of the Amtchefs is concerned, conforms with that of the basic business order that was issued by Pohl, does it not? That's Exhibit--- You know the document I am talking about?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, you probably mean the business order, do you?
Q. Yes.
A. Well, I would like to state now that no details are concerned here in this particular document which is not signed. However, apart from this document a few points were taken over and included in the business order. That is correct.
Q. There is nothing in one order that conflicts with the other. There is nothing in the business order that conflicts with this unsigned memorandum? There is nothing in the business order that conflicts with the unsigned memorandum or vice versa, is there?
A. I would have to compare the two but I believe that you could find those points in this. Five or six points were taken over from that. Not all the points were taken over but a few.
Q. Generally would you say that the two documents conform to each other?
A. No, that is not correct. There are certain deviations.
Q. Well, we won't take time now to go into them. I think the documents will speak for themselves. Do I understand your testimony to be as follows: that you were on the same level with the other office chiefs? Not superior to them or not subordinate to them? Is that your testimony?
A. They were not subordinate to me.
Q. You were on the same level.
A. The same level from a military point of view. I was, according to rank, higher than all those but according to the position as chief of Staff W you can't compare them.
Q. You were also considered office chief as far as the industries are concerned?
A. In my position as chief of Staff W I felt as if I were chief of staff.
Q. And you also were considered an office chief, weren't you?
A. You mean by my subordinates? Yes.
Q. And you were considered an office chief as far as the industries that were under Staff W?
A. Yes, as far as my work was concerned in that field.
Q. Well, will you look at Document Book 14 - the memorandum that sets out various SS industries. Page 16 of the German book, page 19 of English, Exhibit 384, Document NO-1039. You see the industries listed there under Staff W. This is the list of capital and turnover.
A. I have the list.
Q. You see the industries listed under Staff W?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. You were the office chief for these industries, weren't you?
A. No, I was not.
Q. Tell us who was - what office did they come under?
A. These industries did not belong to any office with the exception of Public Utility Dwelling and Homestead Ltd.
The Wiener Moebelwerke did not exist at least in my time. The GMBH was in the Staff but I never carried out any official function for it and as far as Osti is concerned it was not really under Staff W.
Q. Well, the three industries listed there were really under Staff W and very conveniently Osti was not. You heard Pohl's testimony that Osti was under Staff W and Hohberg said it was under Staff W. You wouldn't insist it didn't come under Staff W?
A. Osti never was subordinate to me.
Q. Look at Document Book 15, on page 48 of the German, page 37 of the English text, Exhibit 413, Document NO-515. This is a memorandum prepared in your office. You recognize this document?
A. Is it 415?
Q. It's NO-515, on page 48 of the German, I believe.
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. When was this prepared? This is the list of SS industries that employed concentration camp inmates.
A. I don't know that.
Q. You saw this before, didn't you? It was prepared on your instructions, was it not?
A. I don't know that.
Q. Look at the preceding document, the one immediately preceding - NO-529. It says: "By order of the Chief of Staff Baier. It is to be immediately determined which industries employ inmates." This was drawn up pursuant to that order, wasn't it? You know that.
A. The order had been given. I don't know but I can assume that according to this.
Q. This Document 515 - before I ask you that - it is your testimony, witness, that you didn't give instructions to draw up such a list as this? Didn't you tell us about that yesterday?
A. That I didn't give any instructions, you mean. Or do you mean that I did?
Q. Well, did you or didn't you? You are in the best position to know.
A. During my activity there it occurred several times that I gave instructions to compile a list. Of course, I can't remember if this is one of them.
Q. Well, can you remember giving instructions to draw up a list of industries employing concentration camp inmates?
A. In connection with the handling of wages of inmates it is quite possible.
Q. You don't remember it definitely?
A. I didn't handle that thing myself. I gave my colleagues orders to do so and it probably was done.
Q. You see on this Document 515, here again Osti is listed under Staff W. If you remember, the chart is--- You see that, don't you, 515, Osti listed under Staff W?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. And you recall the chart from which the chart on the wall was drawn up which was signed by Pohl? On that chart the Osti was listed under Staff W, you recall that?
A. Well, the Osti had to appear some place on the chart but was really not subordinate to Staff W. It was simply a company that was not in Staff W. A business manager like Globocnik would never be subordinate to the chiefs of staff. I had nothing to do with that. And I can tell you with good conscience that was just that was on paper, not in reality.
Q. All these other industries were under the supervision of Staff W that were listed there except Osti.
A. No. These two companies were in the same building. That is the reason.
Q. Witness, you remember being interrogated on 14 October 1946 by Mr. Ortmann?
A. Yes.
Q. And you remember his asking you this question and your making this answer?