BY DR. VON STAKELBERG (Counsel for the defendant Fanslau):
Q. Witness, will you please give us your name and the date of your birth?
A. My name is Johann Stein. I was born on 20 August, 1911, in Austria.
Q. Witness, you were employed in the WVHA, were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you join the WVHA?
A. I joined it when it was organized - on the first of April 1942.
Q. What were your tasks which you were given at the time?
A. I was a member of the Department A-V-2. We worked on personnel data of officers and officials of the Waffen SS.
Q. When your department was taken over, did you have a political order of any sort?
A. No.
Q. Can you describe your tasks somewhat more clearly? What were your tasks?
A. In my department we worked on assignments for the administrative officials including their personal files and data suggestions for promotions were made for the Personnel Main Office.
Q. And that department was called, as you said before, A-V-2?
A. Yes, A-V-2.
Q. When you were transferred to the WVHA, what did you think the WVHA was? Did you regard it as a political agency or as a department of state with purposes on behalf of the state?
A. My impression was that the WVHA was the highest administrative agency of the Waffen SS with ministerial authority. It was well known to me that Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, its chief, worked on special tasks on behalf of the Reichsfuehrer SS in the economic sphere.
Q. Your tasks in the department A-5-2 were confined, on the other hand you said, to locking after the Waffen -SS?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you regard as the Waffen-SS as at that time. Were they a military unit or a political group?
A. I regarded the Waffen-SS as a purely military organization. I never saw any political task connected with it.
Q. What other tasks existed apart from A-5-2?
A. There was A-5-1, which worked on the civilian employees of Office Groups A, B and C, without D and W. Department A-5-3 worked all questions of the coming generation of learners their selection and their training.
Q. Who worked in your department, how many people did you have in yours.
A. In my department there was ore more officer, apart from myself; four or five lower officers, and five civilian employees.
Q. What about A-5-1 and A-5-3?
A. I can only tell you how many officials and leaders we had there, in A-5-1 there were two leaders and in A-5-3 there were in the end three leaders.
JUDGE PHILLIPS Witness, was there not an A-5-4 in this organization?
A. No.
BY DR. VON STAKELBERG:
Q. To add something to this question; there is an organizational chart in this courtroom submitted by the Prosecution, And this plan Contains a Department A-5-4. In the bottom corner, on the left.
A. Yes, that is quite right, but it says here that A-5-4 is attached to Office Group D.
Q. Attached, yes. The word "attached" - does it actually say attached?"
A. Yes, it says "attached to."
Q. Does that term "attached" mean that you were merely separated from the office A-5 locally? Or does it mean that that department was part of Office Group D.
A. It means that this department was purely a part of Office Group D, and was immediately subordinated to the office chief of Office Group D. I could explain that further because this organizational chart, when it was first published, I asked my chief, Brigadefuehrer Fanslau what it meant. And he told me that he had not helped to draw up this chart, whereas the main office chief wished that all personnel matters should be given that file note. In other words, the introduction of that file note had a significance only from the point of view of keeping the files. We emphasized particularly that nothing would be changed in the actual organization. That department would continue to be subordinate to Gruppenfuehrer Gluecks in Office Group D.
Q. You said "continue to remain subordinate." Does that mean that that department existed before the inspectorate was incorporated as Office Group D?
A. Yes; it was the personnel agency of the former inspectorate of concentration camps.
Q. If I understand you correctly, by the incorporation one change occurred which was as you said the file note was changed?
A. Yes, that was the only change.
Q. Then that file note was taken over. Does that lead to a dependence of the personnel office in Office Group D to A- Five was concerned?
A. No, in no way at all.
A. Were there any connections between Office A-5 and the personnel office, with Amtsgruppe D?
A. No.
Q. Who was in charge of that office group D.
A. The man in charge was Sturmbannfuehrer Harbaum, who was also Gluecks' adjutant.
Q. Do you know whether Harbaum and Fanslau ever saw each other?
Did Harbaum ever report about his business to Fanslau?
A. No. What I know is that Harbaum or Gluecks had only conversations about replacements in personnel, either with agencies of the army, the personnel main office, the SS main office. He would lead these negotiations directly with the agency without consulting or informing Fanslau in any sense. That would not have been possible if even the slightest contact had existed because all these conversations held by the administrative personnel would be carried out by Fanslau and the agencies concerned.
Q. Mr. Fanslau?
A. Yes, as far as administrative personnel were concerned.
Q. And also what about concentration camp service. You said it was Office Group D.
A. Yes, it was only Office Group D.
Q. Was the independence of A-5-4 expressed in any other factors? Can you give us a survey in how far the independence of that office was expressed?
A. Yes; the personnel office controlled all administrative officers with the troops. They kept very precise files, of the Waffen SS, whereas the personal files of the members of Office Group D were not kept by the personnel office, probably the Office Group D, itself.
Q. You mean "personnel office?" What do you mean, personnel office?
A. By thAt I mean Office A-5.
Q. I want to make that quite clear. We want to speak about the personnel office; we wish to refer to the personnel office as A-5, and we must not confuse the two terns, must we?
A. No.
Q. Now, you said of the entire WVHA and of all agencies of the Waffen-SS, all personal files were kept by Office A-5, not as far as Office Group D was concerned.
A. I wish to make that even clearer. All administrative offices of the Waffen SS, including those fighting at the front -- all agencies all other units of the Waffen SS-the files were kept by the Office A-5. That is correct. Whereas the personnel files of members of the concentration camps were not kept by the personnel office, probably by Office Group D.
At any rate, not by Office A-5. Another example: Strength reports which reported the exact strength of the various offices, Waffen-SS, members, including civilian employees never contained the strength of the personnel of office Group D. That , I think, are the most essential points.
Q. And all personal conversations were made between Gluecks and Pohl themselves, and did not go to Fanslau. Now, this morning a document was submitted by Chief of Amtsgrupps D, and that document contains, on page 3, a paragraph for lain Department A-5-4. Will you please look at the document and tell us whether that confirms your opinion?
THE PRESIDENT: Are you referring -
DR. VON STAKELBERG: I am referring to a Document this morning. Will you please give it number -
WITNESS: Five hundred fifty-two.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: It is Exhibit 552 for identification.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: What did you ask the witness, please?
DR. VON STAKELBERG: I asked the witness to look at paragraph e and to examine whether what it contained there confirms what he has told us so far.
A Yes, this is a purely internal matter of Office Group D.
Q Perhaps you will look at the various points and explain to us what does point No. 1 say?
A Monthly strength report for participants in SS Army Post Offices.
Q Were they to be sent to the Main Department A V 4, or what happened?
A No, this is a general date when reports must be submitted for such units and the Main Department A V 4 is responsible for the various points mentioned in detail. That means that Department A V 4 was responsible within Office Group D for the monthly strength reports for participants in SS Army Post Offices within the framework subordinated to Office Group D as is shown by the distribution list.
Q Does this show that there was no connection to Office A V?
A No.
Q Now what about monthly strength reports for camp command and guard units?
A That means that the camp commandants had to send monthly strength reports to Office Group D.
Q And in Office Group D to Main Department A V 4?
A Yes, that was the agency competent and concerned for these things.
Q Did you ever in office A V receive strength reports from these agencies?
A No, never.
Q And please look at the other paragraphs. Are they the same? Do they mean the same?
A Yes, it is quite the same thing.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q So let us make it quite clear once more. This decree was issued by whom?
A It came from Chief of Office Group D, Gruppenfuehrer Gluecks.
Q And it concerns, as you say, monthly reports to the various departments of Office Group D. They were responsible?
A Yes.
Q And does it show under a Chief of Office D-1? I see Chief of Office D 3 for the dental stations, for the chief of Office D 4, and then for Main Department A 5 V. Then again Chief of Office D 1 and Chief of Office D 2. You as an expert and former member of the WVHA, does that show to you without any doubt that the Main Department A V 4 was part of Office Group D?
A Yes, because Office Chief D could never give official orders to A V 4 unless it had been his subordinate.
Q And that also corresponds to what you have told us from your own knowledge?
A Quite.
Q Were you ever told the reason why A V 4 was so independent within Office Group D? Was it based on any special agreement or something?
A Yes, that was an arrangement between Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl and Gruppenfuehrer Gluecks on the occasion of the incorporation. Moreover, it had been a completely alien department and from a personal point of view it had not been suitable because both training and service were quite different.
Q You said two things just now. First of all, it was a definite arrangement between Pohl and Gluecks?
A Yes.
Q That is known to you?
A That is how Brigadefuehrer Fanslau explained it to me at the time.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q At the time?
A Yes, at the time.
Q And secondly, factually speaking, it was an entirely different thing. What are these differences in the administrative career and the career of a concentration camp service?
A You mean as far as the tasks were concerned?
Q Well, let us say first of all the tasks, and then later on in the development.
A All I can describe for you is the career of an administrative officer after his training, because I do not know the work done in a concentration camp.
Q You don't know that, do you?
A An administrative officer was responsible for the whole of the money, supplies, expenses, personal expenses, wages, salaries of the employees. He had to provide food, billets and clothing. These were the tasks of an administrative officer, which had nothing to do with the tasks and duties of a real concentration camp service.
Q The two careers, were there any differences in their uniforms?
A Yes. An administrative officer wore a light blue color, whereas the concentration camp people wore a brown shaded color.
Q Where were the offices of Office A V in Berlin Unter den Eichen?
A All the agencies and departments, that is to say, I must modify this, apart from W and some of C, but most of the office groups A B and some of C were concentrated in one big building in Lichterfelde Unter den Eichen. Office Group A was at a distance of about 200 or 300 meters from the other office groups. You had to cross the street to get there.
Q It was, in other words, not in the same building where the offices of Pohl were, for instance?
A No, I said we had to cross the street, walk for about 200 Court No. II, Case No. 4.or 300 meters, and go into a different building.
Q Now, did administrative officers ever work in Office Group D?
A I can only remember how five or six administrative officials were transferred there, whereas Office Group D had about 25 or 30 administrative officials, but most of them when the concentration camps were incorporated joined it and remained there until the end.
Q They were not put at the disposal then by Office A V?
A No, they had been in the concentration comps before.
Q And in that direction there were about 25 or 30 officials active?
A Yes.
Q How many administrative officials were there altogether in the Waffen SS?
A I think we had about 3,000 administrative officials in the Waffen SS.
Q And of those 3,000 there were for Office Group D only about 25 to 30?
A Yes, including those who work in Office Group D. Office Group D included concentration camps.
Q You mean administrative officials in concentration camps?
A Yes.
Q The personnel agency A V 4 was located where?
A In Oranienburg with the Office Group.
Q These four or five administrative officials who came from Office A V and were transferred to D, how were they selected?
A There were not selected particularly. There was no special training necessary there. They were probably selected according to age. They preferred elderly people, calm people, who were no longer able to serve in the war. Younger persons were needed for the troops.
Q And any special selection and training for the work in concentration camps did not exist?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A No, it did not.
Q Now, after you had transferred these officers did you have any possibility still to influence them and direct them?
A No. Once they had been transferred the officer concerned was under the camp commandant or his superior officer, and therefore completely outside our influence.
Q How was the personnel directed by Office Group D?
A The Office Chief of D requested the officers they needed. We transferred them to the offices or agencies and there they were trained by the office chiefs or people in charge and sent to their offices.
Q As far as Office Group C was concerned, what type of personnel worked there?
A Office Group C had mainly skilled experts, civilian employees, and a certain number of former Luftwaffe members.
Q Who had sent these Luftwaffe members to Office Group C?
A That was done by Kammler by arrangement with the Luftwaffe. They had been transferred to the Waffen SS.
Q Did he negotiate direct, or through Office A V?
A In these matters he insisted on negotiating himself.
Later on he had a special authority from the Reichsfuehrer in order to get personnel from the troops if he needed it.
Q And how were these people transferred to Amtsgruppe C? How were they directed by Office A V?
A That was done in the same way as Office Group B. They were requested by the Office Chief or any other official, but we had even less influence there because all these people were definite experts.
Q If I understand you correctly, you had no influence on the activities of these administrative officials?
A No, we were not even able to judge how far their training had gone, because they were technical personnel.
Q What about Office Group W? What was the personnel situation there?
AAs far as that group was concerned, they were transferred to the various offices by orders of the office chief, and these officers then worked in the offices to which they were sent.
Q What types of personnel did office group W have?
A Office group W had a great many experts under it and a large number of civilian employees -- skilled personnel for special tasks.
Q Who worked on the officers' data and files?
A The leaders were, of course, controlled by us and transferred by us. Civilian personnel was not controlled by A-V, but probably by the various office themselves.
Q So if I have followed you correctly, Office A-V, as far as the other office groups were concerned, had no independent possibility to direct personnel. Did Office A-V have any independent possibilities to direct?
A Yes. The whole of the administrative personnel of office group A and the administrative officials of the units and agencies of the Waffen-SS down to Hauptsturmfuehrer, were transferred by the personnel office independently. From a major upwards, the main office chief reserved the right to make decisions.
Q From a staff officer upwards, did you say?
A Yes.
Q At this point, I would like to show you a document which is in Document Book 18. It is Exhibit 471. In the German on Page 106? and in the English -- I am afraid I haven't got the page.
THE PRESIDENT: May I interrupt just a moment, please? Mr. Robbins, the chart which is being used or has been used and which was shown to us in German? is that identical with Exhibit 36 which is attached to the basic information document, except that it's more complete, or is it elsewhere in the document?
MR. ROBBINS: It's almost identical, but not quite. It is identical with Document NO-111, which is in Document Book No. II.
THE PRESIDENT: We do have a copy of it in the document book?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: In Document Book II?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes. However, as I pointed out this morning, there is one point in which it is incomplete and that is the very point we are talking about. I will supply the Court with the translation.
BY DR. von STAKELBERG:
Q This is a personnel file of a Hauptsturmfuehrer. It says here, Dr. Max Horn. Will you please look at it? (Witness if offered the file.) Is that a personnel file of Office A-V?
A No.
Q What can you conclude from this, that such a file would be kept by a different office group?
A Well, each office group and even the offices kept personnel data on the people that worked in their offices, and that personnel file in this case -
Q It's on Page 106.
A It's probably been done by some W office.
Q Does that confirm your opinion that the personnel direction within office group W came from office group W itself?
A Yes, or by the office concerned.
Q In this case, not by office A-V?
A No, not by office A-V.
Q Did personnel management A-V transfer its knowledge, so to speak, about the departments and the people it looked after? What I mean by that is if administrative officials were transferred to other office groups and you still kept the personnel files, did you by that work obtain knowledge of the details of what these people.
A No, that was not the task of the personnel office but it was the task of the manager concerned.
Q Knowledge was not transmitted by that, was it?
A No.
Q Did you know anything about Action Reinhardt, as it was called?
A No.
Q When did you hear the work Reinhardt Action for the first time?
A I heard this term for the first time by Dr. Rausehenbach who asked me about it.
Q Did you know what the Action Reinhardt stood for?
A No.
Q Witness, please make a pause between my question and your answer, so that the interpreters can interpret.
Was it know to you that the former Gruppenfuehrer--Brigadefuehrer Globecnik was in Lublin where he had built up an administration of his own?
A No.
Q Administration G was unknown to you then?
A Yes, it was.
Q From the documents which we have received here, it becomes clear that Globocnik used the garrison administration of Lublin. Was the Lublin garrison under the WVHA?
A The garrison administration of Lublin was not under the WVHA, as all garrison administrations in occupied territories were under the administrative officials. The garrison administrations of the home country were under the SS main operational office. (Fuhrungs Haupt Amt)
Q Therefore you had nothing to do with the Lublin administration, did you?
A No.
Q Who was in charge of the Lublin administration?
A That was Sturmbannfuehrer Wippern.
Q Was he sent to Lublin by the WVHA?
A No. Wippern was there when the WVHA was organized.
Q You had no contact with Wippern then, did you?
A No.
Curt No. 2, Case 4
Q And who supplied the lower officers for these garrisons, in particular to Bublin?
A The lower grade officers were sent by the SS main operational office.
Q Did you know Globocnik personally?
A No.
Q Do you know whether defendant Fanslau, as your former chief, did he ever take part in what was known as the Commandant Meetings, the meetings of the concentration camp commandants?
A I know nothing about that, although I was always informed where the chief would be at any given time.
Q Witness, I have a question about Globocnik still. In some report, Globocnik made the statement that the personnel office administration G had been transferred from the WVHA. Is that a mistake on Globocnik's part?
A That is definitely a mistake because the WVHA, as far as I know, never sent anybody to Globocnik's agency. It would not have been competent for a transfer of that sort.
Q Globocnik probably thought that the garrison administration was under the WVHA?
A Yes.
Q Now I want to show you another document, which is in Document Book II, as Exhibit 46. It's on Page 122 of the German Document Book. It deals with a correspondence between SS Oberfuehrer Fanslau, as he was at the time, and other of office groups, about a report concerning the organization of the WVHA. Do you know anything about this report?
(Witness is offered the document)
A Yes, I know that report, and I believe I read through it briefly at one point. We are concerned here with a survey about the development of the SS administration, the experiences gathered therein, and the tasks of the WVHA. As far as I know, the lecture was given at the Military Academy quite publicly.
What happened after that, or as to any other lectures, would probably be impossible because of the military situation.
Q Was that a military secret?
A No, it was not a military secret at all. It was quite a public lecture.
Q In that lecture reference is made to the fact that inmates within office group W used to do work. Did the lecture show in any way that this labor allocation took place under inhumane conditions?
A No, work done by the inmates under normal conditions is also usual under normal penal administration. Then the lecture, therefore, did not show anything unusual.
Q The lecture also refers to the fact that the allocation of inmates had been done for educational reasons in order to bring asocial elements back into normal work. Was that a credible statement when you read it? Did you believe that purpose?
A Yes.
Q In Document Book 19 there is an order about the dissolution of the Kurland Organization, Exhibit 497 in the German Document Book, page 119. Do you know that order?
A Yes, I received that order myself.
Q Was it carried out?
A It was not carried out because meanwhile the pocket in Kurland had been formed and the personnel could not be mobilized.
Q Did you know Hauptsturmfuehrer Melmer?
A Yes.
Q What were his tasks in Office Group A?
A Hauptsturmfuehrer Melmer had the Treasury of Office Group A. By saving personnel the Obersturmfuehrer Dorsch was transferred, and Melmer was given his tasks, and he and his whole agency joined the staff of Pohl.
Q He left Office Group A, did he?
A Yes.
Q When did he leave Office Group A?
A That must have been roughly in May 1944.
Q Then I want to show you a decree of the 4th of July, 1944, which still shows Melmer's file note and the main file note is AII-3. You know all about keeping files, don't you?
A Yes.
Q Does it mean that Obersturmfuehrer Melmer after his resignation from Office Group A still used that file note without being actually a member of the office group and under the Chief of Office Group A; did he, as it were, take his file note with him?
A That I think must have been the case here, because an official change in the organizational plan was not carried out, which is the reason why Melmer took the file note with him.
Q Will you please read it carefully, AII-3?
AAII-3 and then Reinhardt.
Q Tell the Tribunal what document you are talking about at this point. Will you please look at the number in the top right hand corner?
ANO-543.
Q This was Exhibit NO-543. Melmer in July 1944 still used a file note of Office Group A and also a file note, R.A.D., an abbreviation for Reinhardt, obviously, but you confirm that at that time he no longer was in Office Group A, is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct and I know that for the reason that in March of 1944 I returned to the Personnel Office from the front following which Obersturmfuehrer Dorsch was transferred by me to the front. This is the reason why it is out of the question that Melmer in July should still be a member of Office Group A.
Q You tell me from your special expert knowledge that was quite feasible for him to take his file note with him?
A It is even understandable. Melmer up to that point kept the whole correspondence under that file note. Logically, the answers would come in with the file note on top. That would have entailed an official change in the organizational plan in order to inform outside agencies of the fact if Melmer suddenly used a different file note.
Q You did tell us that was a purely formal report, but actually Melmer was no longer in Office Group A and therefore not under the Office Croup Chief?
A That is quite correct.
Q From your activities, did you know anything about medical experiments on human beings?
A No.
Q About the euthanasia program?
A No.
Q Extermination of Jews?
A No.
Q The systematic looting of foreign property?
A No.
Q The allocation of labor of inmates I referred to before, did you know anything from your official activities about the fact that inmates worked under inhumane conditions?
A No.
Q As you worked under Fanslau for a long time, you should be in a position to have formed an impression of his character. I am interests ed particularly in -- Was Fanslau a man with political tendencies and interests or was he simply a soldier?
A The former Brigadefuehrer Fanslau as long as I knew him had only military tasks concerning troop administration and supply for troops. He was purely and exclusively a soldier, and all matters which were not part of his military tasks were beyond his sphere of interest. In the many conferences which I attended, including private conversations, Fanslau never once touched on a political problem, be it racial questions, ecclesiastical questions, or concentration camp matters. The reason why his interests were so limited can be explained from his character and his nature.
If Fanslau were given a task, he devoted his entire vitality and efficiency to the carrying out of this particular task. That in particular was the leader corps of the administrative service of the Waffen SS.
From that mentality, it can be explained why here Fanslau, even when he was Chief of Office Group, devoted most of his time to personnel problems. He had to talk about these problems daily and hourly, almost, and office chiefs from other spheres were unable to report to him for weeks at certain times. His main interest was connected with the training of the younger generation of leaders. He was extremely rigid in that respect. He made high demands, both in physical and mental respects. Ideologically speaking, he was a very tolerant person. That could be shown by the fact that his most intimate collaborator and adviser in all questions of the training of the younger generation of leaders was a man who was a reserve officer, who had never been a member of the General SS, but only after his transfer from the army to the SS police division came into the Waffen SS, and who up to the end was a religious man, a member of the Catholic Church.
Fanslau judged people by their character, and in particular he demanded, especially from administrative officials, an attitude which would be appropriate to a soldier and an officer.
Q Thank you very much.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: At this point I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: This is a very fortunate time for a recess then.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)