Q Is that the first time that you had heard that Jews had been killed in concentration camps?
A I heard for the first time there, that the German Reich had proclaimed an extermination program against the whole of Jewry, who had associated against Hitler.
Q That is not what I quite asked you. Had you heard prior to that time that Jews had been killed in concentration camps?
A No.
Q Had you heard they had died in concentration camps on a large scale?
A No, that people died in concentration camps was clear to me, but not clear in the sense that they would be worked to death, or killed there.
Q You did not know that the death rate was abnormal or alarmingly high in the concentration camps?
A I never formed any figures on the number of people killed there.
Q No, that is not an answer to my question. You did not know that the death rate in concentration camps prior to October 1943 was alarmingly high, abnormally high?
A No.
Q Were any of the other defendants in the dock at the speech at Posen, so far as you know?
A I don't believe so.
Q You know that Pohl was there? You heard him say that?
A Yes, Pohl, yes, of course, that is quite clear. Of course I expected Pohl to be there.
Q We were just speaking about clothes there at Lublin. Could you tell what happened to the clothes after they came under your supervision; what was the ultimate disposition of this clothing?
A I am sorry, I don't understand the question. Do you mean the clothing which had been manufactured?
Q We are talking about the - -
A The underwear, and -- ?
Q Yes, the clothing we were just speaking about from the clothing treasury in Lublin?
A I would like to state that the clothing was paid for by the clothing treasury; the clothing treasury had no interest in sending underwear, shirts, and so forth from Lublin without paying for them, because the officers paid for the underwear which they received and I am not informed who received the money after that.
Q The officers paid whom?
A The clothing treasury where they bought their things.
Q And the ultimate disposition of the clothing was to the SS officers, is that right?
A I think I ought to describe this again briefly. In the whole of Germany, and in the occupied territories -
Q Excuse me.
A - - we had the so-called treasury -
Q You talked about this in great detail yesterday. It is not just clear to me who ultimately received the clothing. You can give a very brief answer to that. Was that the SS Officers?
A Yes, the SS Officers they got it from the clothing treasury, paid the clothing treasury, and the clothing treasury would pay for the clothing received from the textile works in Lublin.
Q Now Globocnik had no authority over you, did he?
A Who?
Q Globocnik?
A Over me, No, he had no authority.
Q He could not give you an order, could he?
A No, Globocnik could not.
Q You knew Globocnik quite well? Did you not?
A Fairly well. I knew him as well as any other higher SS officer.
Q You visited him in the East, didn't you?
A Yes, I visited him. I said so already yesterday.
Q When was that?
A. In 1942 as I remember right, sir. It must have been about May or June.
I think it must have been on the occasion of my big trip to Poland.
Q Was that the only time you visited him?
A I am not quite sure. I went to Poland once a year, because I visited the units in the occupied territories, so, therefore, it is quite possible I saw him again, but I am really not quite sure.
Q When you visited Globocnik did you talk to him about "Action Reinhardt"?
A No, not in that sense, but what I discussed with him at that time in 1942 is that he should look after the SS affairs, because he had an enormous influence on all the things there, particularly on the whole economy in that district. He complied with my wish. He built barracks there, and he even offered to furnish shirts and underwear. As far as I know he looked after the things fairly well. I never discussed the extermination of people with Globocnik. There was no occasion for me to do so.
Q Nor did you discuss with him the utilization or use of the goods and loot that was taken from the Jewish people in the Ghetto's?
A No, that I discussed only with Wippern, who once came and told me.
Q Did he tell you at that time they were carrying out a policy of confiscating valuables from the Jews in the Ghetto?
A Yes.
Q Did he also tell you that it would be your task to regulate the receipt of these goods, and to see that these valuables reached the proper authorities?
A Yes. May I state here that Wippern's visit took place much later.
Q Did you ever receive correspondence from Globocnik concerning the utilization of these valuables other than that one letter you told about, which was in September 1943?
A I am not able to say. It is possible that Globocnik in some way or other wrote to me, but I don't recollect what. I am not able to say anything about that.
Q You did not exclude the possibility that happened?
A It is quite possible. He wrote me in some form or another. It is quite possible but I don't recollect that affair any more today. Why, it is as I said a long time ago, and the impressions I got at that time were so enormous, particularly in the Winter from '42 to '43, with the Stalingrad Front collapsing as we were all extremely excited and nervous, and kept going day and night, to and from, always in a pressing way so enormous that everything else receded in one's mind.
Q. Did you see any of the final reports by Globocnik after the clean-up action had taken place?
A. No.
Q. Did you see any of the reports by Stroop after the clean-up of the Warsaw ghetto had taken place?
A. No.
Q. Did you hear about them?
A. At that time I was with the police, and a police officer in the officers' mess told me one evening about this action. That must have been about the middle of September.
Q. '43?
A. Yes, 1943, which was the first time that I heard more details about this action.
Q. Now, you told us that you knew that the spectacles and the gold teeth that you received from Lublin and from the East had come from deceased concentration camp inmates, is that right?
A. Yes, that is what I had to assume.
Q. And you also said that if you had seen any of the figures, any of the amounts, at that time you would have had to conclude that these spectacles and gold came from inmates who had met a violent death, is that right?
A. Had I seen these reports afterwards, I would have had to reach that conclusion -- had I seen those figures which are contained in Globocnik's report.
Q. Do you maintain today that during that period of time while Action Reinhardt was taking place and around the month of September 1942 when you issued your order, which we have discussed at length - NO 724 do you maintain that you saw no figures, no totals, no amounts, as to the amount of goods that were reaching you?
A. I cannot recollect any such thing.
Q. Well, if you had seen figures, would you be able to recollect today? This must have made a--
A. It is possible.
Q. I should think that you would. That is the conclusion from your statement -- that if you had seen any of these statements, you would have been forced to the conclusion that they came from people who had met a violent death, and that certainly would have made an impression on you. Now, I want you to search your memory and tell us whether or not you saw any figures which indicated that a tremendous number of spectacles or amounts of gold came from the East through these actions.
A. I have asked myself that question. I do not reach any conclusion. I simply do not know if I saw it or not. I am inclined to think that I did not.
Q. I would like to show you a letter that you wrote about that time which I think will help your memory in that respect. This is Document NO 2305, and I offer it as Prosecution Exhibit 550 for identification. This is your letter to Himmler, 8 October 1942:
"Dear Reichsfuehrer: The pieces of gold from the teeth of deceased prisoners will be delivered to the Medical Office in accordance with your order. They will be used there for dental treatment of our men.
"SS Oberfuehrer Blaschke already has a stock of over 50 kg. of gold; that is the anticipated precious metal requirement for the next five years. For reasons of security, as well as in the interests of utilization, I do not consider it feasible to collect more gold for this purpose.
"I request your confirmation that pieces of gold removed from the teeth and supplied in the normal way by the concentration camps may in future be delivered to the Reichsbank against acknowledgment."
You wrote this letter, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. You had no doubt after you discovered that the SS had taken enough gold to last themselves for five years from the concentration camps that this tremendous figure, this amount of gold which would amount to more than 100 pounds, came from inmates who had met a violent death?
A. Do you believe, sir, that it is possible to collect 50 kilos of gold from gold teeth?
Q. I'm asking you that. That is clearly indicated by your letter.
A. That is not true, sir. In these documents I saw a few documents from which I deduced that the gold teeth from inmates amounted to 0.5 g., an extremely small quantity. Therefore, hundreds and thousands of other gold must have been received, quite apart from the fact that in my opinion only every fifth man or every tenth man has any gold teeth in his mouth and that it amounts to only a few grams. How would it be possible for me to assume that four weeks after the decree signed by me a quantity of 50 kilos would be received from gold teeth alone? Millions of people would have had to be exterminated for that purpose in order to get 50 kilos of gold.
Q. General, you have seen in evidence in this case an admission by Rudolf Hoess that he himself killed 3,000,000 people in the East. You're right, it would have taken 3,000,000 people to supply this much gold, but millions of people were killed.
A. But, sir, I might say here that at the time I wrote this letter, in October 1942, that cannot have happened. Even according to the documents, it becomes clear that the extermination of Jews lasted for four years. Whether in 1942 Jews were being exterminated at all or to what extent, I do not know, but I would beg of you to consider that 50 kilos of gold came from gold coins and from uncoined gold, but never could 50 kilos of gold come from gold teeth, which amounts to a few grams. At this speed I am unable to figure out how many grams would be needed for a hundred pounds of gold to arrive at that fantastic figure. How could it be possible, four weeks after this decree, to say that 50 kilos from gold teeth alone had been delivered?
Q. Witness, you are not going to tell us that the SS had its own gold mine, are you? You don't deny that at least a great part of this came from pieces of gold from the teeth of deceased prisoners? You talk about that in your letter.
A. The point of this letter was, and I assume its history is this: Dental treatment in concentration camps and in SS dental stations required a certain amount of gold, which we did not have. Therefore, I was probably given the order to contact the highest dental officer of the SS and supply him with a certain amount of gold -- not I, myself, but some other agency. Now, after Blaschke, who was the supreme dental officer of the SS, had received a total of 50 kilos, in October 1942 according to my letter, I reported to the Reichsfuehrer that Blaschke already had a stock of more than 50 kilos and that, as I say in paragraph three, for reasons of security I did not consider it feasible to collect more gold because the leading dental officer already had a quantity of 50 kilos of gold. I did this for reasons of security, because after all it is a highly valuable possession, and if he had a sufficient supply for the next five years - which incidentally was also put at the disposal of the inmates - for that reason I wrote to the Reichsfuehrer that I did not consider it necessary to transfer the gold from concentration camps to Blaschke but that it should go to the Reichsbank. However, I must emphatically oppose the fact that I should be charged with knowledge or the assumption that the 50 kilos were gold from the mouths of deceased prisoners. That is quite impossible. You could figure it out. We have a dentist here in the court who could confirm this, how many grams could be taken from one dead inmate. I read in the documents 0.8, 1.2, 1.5 grams, so that for one kilo thousands of deceased persons with gold teeth would be required.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you will have to concede, Mr. Robbins, that 50 kilograms, over 50 kilograms, which is about 110.2 pounds, is a lot of gold to have been accumulated by October 1942 from oral sources alone.
MR. ROBBINS: It certainly is a lot of gold.
THE PRESIDENT: Because the extermination program was far from its height at that time. It was going good, but I mean it had not reached its maximum at that time.
MR. ROBBINS: Well, at that time millions of people had already been killed in the concentration camps. I am not concerned with whether or not all this gold came from deceased inmates, but the letter itself, and I would like to ask the witness -
(By Mr. Robbins) The letter itself shows that a part of this gold came from the mouths of deceased inmates?
THE PRESIDENT: That is right.
A Even that, I wish to dispute for the following reasons. Technically speaking it would have been much simpler to have the gold as gold, as pure gold or coining gold, and give it to Blaschke, rather than have a few grams here and there or gather the teeth in bags and to send these bags full of teeth to Blaschke. I have read in the trial that the Reichsbank itself has stated that it, the Reichsbank, changed the gold teeth in the official exchequer in 1943, or from 1943 onward, and only that changed gold was of any interest to Blaschke. What was he to do with a few individual teeth? Was he to change it? Fifth kilos of golden teeth, very, very thin plates, would have been a most enormous bag.
Q I would like to ask you that question. You say in your letter to Himmler that, "I hope the gold from teeth of deceased prisoners will be delivered to the medical office." You tell us what they were doing with it. It is the first sentence in your letter.
A Well, from there it was delivered to the medical office, which is confirmed by all letters in the document book.
Q Why did they do it; why did they do it? Did they just leave it lying around?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, he answers in the second sentence of the first paragraph.
MR. ROBBINS: I think that is perfectly clear.
Q (By Mr. Robbins) Now, Witness, when you saw that the SS had a stock of fifty kilograms of gold and undoubtedly a part of this came from the teeth of deceased inmates, weren't you curious to find out what proportion of this tremendous amount of gold came from inmates; didn't you make any inquiry about that at all?
A In these documents, sir, the books clearly show that from 1939 onward gold from teeth was taken out of the mouths of state inmates, and that gold was to be delivered to the medical office. There is, therefore, no doubt that among these fifty kilos, one, two or three kilos really were gold teeth, of which I have no doubt at all, but all this came from inmates who had died.
Q One, two or three kilos, that is all you had any notion of, one or two or three kilos?
A Within the period of four years, yes. You said before that in 1942 million had been exterminated already. That, sir, is not my impression from the document in 1942.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's not argue any more about this point. I think it is clear what the witness wishes to say.
Q (By Mr. Robbins) Witness, I would like to show you another document and ask you if this is your signature. This is Document NO-2751, and I will mark it as Exhibit 551 for identification.
A May I comment on this?
Q Yes. Wait until the Tribunal gets its copy if you will. May I ask that you don't tell us anything that you have already told us? In other words, don't repeat your previous testimony that you knew nothing about the source of these watches, because that is already in the record and this letter just supplements your other reports of the watches and fountain pens. If you have anything new to add, go right ahead.
A I have never denied, sir, that I wrote the letter about the watches to the Reichsfuehrer. The letter now put before me is a letter written to remind the Reichsfuehrer of my previous letter written, I believe, in May, 1943. It must have been drawn up in my last days in the WVHA and was given to me on 2 September for my signature. Brandt himself said in his letter which you put to Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl as an additional document, he refers to this letter and he says, "I ask Frank to send me a copy." This is the additional letter to it. I fully acknowledge the letter; I wrote it. I never left any doubt that I know that in Oranienburg there were a very large number of watches.
Q You knew that these 15,000 watches, 8,000 fountain pens which were being turned over to Himmler had been confiscated from the people in the East, from the ghetto?
A I have never denied, sir, that I knew that.
Q Now, you told us that there were three ultimate destinations for this loot. You said first for the cash, in the cash boxes, that this went went to the treasuries of the concentration camps or the treasuries of the WVHA, respectively; secondly, for the gold and the jewelry, the vaults of the Reichsbank; and third, for the watches and fountain pens, the work shops of Amtsgruppe D at Oranienburg. I would like just briefly to take these up, these three categories, and have you tell us, just state step by step from the time they left the concentration-camp inmate or the Jew in the Warsaw ghetto, just exactly what happened. In the first place what happened to the cash, which you say went to the treasuries of the concentration camps or the treasuries of the WVHA?
A Yes, quite.
Q Who handled it?
A That money on the first point reached quite automatically the concentration-camp treasuries, the Reich, for each treasury of a concentration camp was a Reich treasury, and at the very moment when the administrative officer put the money into the cash box it became Reich money. He even could work with that money too by not requesting more money from Berlin, because he had enough money in his treasury and used it as a Reich fund.
Q Did he make any report on it; did he enter this in any book?
A Yes, it had to become clear from the cash book.
Q That cash was coming in. And you told us already that these cash books were from time to time audited by the Defendant Vogt.
A These cash books were audited every three months. They were sent, rather, to the Office Group D in Oranienburg, and there they remained until they were audited.
Q And they were ultimately audited by Vogt?
A Vogt and the Auditing Court made an arrangement between themselves who was to audit them.
Q And for the gold and the jewelry in the vaults of the Reichsbank, this was handled by your man Melmer, was it not, in A-II?
A Yes, quite.
Q And thirdly the watches and fountain pens, who saw that they got to the workshops in Amtsgruppe D in Oranienburg, who handled this procedure?
A I asked Sommer here in this court, "Sommer, please tell me who brought the watches to you?" His reply was, "Melmer brought them along, or the people from Auschwitz or Lublin directly." He believed particularly to remember Melmer in this connection.
Q You have told us -
THE PRESIDENT: Whom did he remember particularly?
MR. ROBBINS: Melmer.
THE WITNESS: Hauptsturmfuehrer Melmer.
MR. ROBBINS: In Amt A-II.
THE WITNESS: He had special orders from Pohl to deliver the jewelry, the jewelry to the Reichsbank.
Q (By Mr. Robbins) Now, you have told us that you were opposed to the confiscation of these items and that you had to make some compromise with your conscience in carrying it out, is that right?
A Yes.
Q I ask you, Witness, what do you think should be done with this gold now that it has been captured, do you think it should be returned to the people from whom it was taken away, do you think it should be restored to the original owners?
AAs the whole quantity of gold, the jewelry and other valuables were gathered in the vaults of the Reichsbank, it was possible, in my opinion, some day or other, to find out how much, the total value these things amounted. I read in the newspapers that in Frankfurt on Main after the end of the war this whole treasury was found because it was transferred from Berlin to Frankfurt, and I believe, sir, that it was much better, rather than waste these valuable things and leave them in the hands of corrupt individuals, to concentrate them in one spot and possibly from this corrosive gold use it usefully, because it is there today.
It is concentrated in one spot. I have read in the papers that it amounted to ever two millions marks, and it would be possible to use it today.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q I am just asking you as far as it is possible to find the original owners of this loot, do you think it should be returned to them?
A As far as these people are still alive, certainly. At least it should be returned to their children and their relatives.
Q You approve of the principle of restitution of this property?
A Yes.
Q I would like to ask you, when you talked to Hohberg and Baier about the loan from these Reinhardt Funds, referring to Exhibit 483, which you discussed yesterday, in Document Book 19; it is on page 15 of your book -
A Yes, I found it.
DR. HEIM (Counsel for the defendant Hohberg): I believe that the Prosecutor has made a mistake when he said that Hohberg and Baier had negotiated with Frank. I do not have the document book with me right now, but I believe I can recall that reference is made here to a discussion between Frank, Dr. Hohberg and Dr. Wenner.
MR. ROBBINS: Well, this particular document that I just referred to, Exhibit 483, refers to a discussion of Hohberg and Frank about Reinhardt Funds and another connection the witness testified that he spoke to Baier about the Reinhardt Fund, and Baier asked him what does the term mean.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, for the present let me direct your attention to Document NO-1266. Do you have that in front of you?
A Yes, I have.
Q When you discussed the Reinhardt Funds with Hohberg, did he ask you what the Reinhardt Funds consisted of?
A I am not able to tell you that today. This happened four years ago. How can I possibly recall the details of that conversation?
Q You don't exclude the possibility that you did explain to Court No. II, Case No. 4.him the meaning of the Reinhardt Funds?
A I am unable to say anything about it.
Q Does the same go for your discussion with Baier?
A Yes.
Q Now, you have told us that in your utilization of the loot from the Action Reinhardt you acted as Pohl's deputy, and not as chief of Amtsgruppe A?
A Yes.
Q Well, how can you explain the fact that when you were asked by your counsel and by other counsels what duties you carried out as the deputy of Pohl, you said you acted only in connection with Amtsgruppe A. You said that you had no jurisdiction over any of the other office groups, and you didn't give us any specific illustration of any task that you carried out as Pohl's deputy. It is a fact, isn't it, that you carried out this task as chief of Amtsgruppe A?
A There are three documents which show that I signed them, and all three documents I signed "I.V." which stands for "Deputy".
Q You also signed as Chief of Amtsgruppe A on all three. If you will look at the documents; also the last two documents which I just gave you, dealing with the watches and dealing with the gold...
A I am afraid that has been taken away from me again.
Q You are looking at 2357--sorry. Well, for the moment, direct your attention to NO-2305. You see the reference up to the corner: Chief A, and also the Document NO-2751. Do you see the dictation note in the corner? Chief A. Now, will you look at the other three basic documents which you discussed? They are in Book 18 and Book 5. Your order concerning the gold teeth, 26 September, 1946. NO-724, Exhibit 472. Do you have that?
A Yes.
Q Do you see "Chief, A" in the dictation marks?
A Yes.
Q Will you turn over to Document NO-2003, which is Exhibit Court No. II, Case No. 4.480, which you dictated, and which concerns the disposition of watches, fountain pens, pencils, pocket books, razor blades, and so forth.
Do you see in the corner, "Chief A?" Also, in Book 5 the same dictation marks--or, rather, it is Amtsgruppe A-2, on document NO-858-PS, which concerns the disposition of clothing and effects of deceased inmates?
That indicates that you were carrying this out as Chief of Amtsgruppe A, doesn't it?
A In all my documents, sir, I always put "Chief, A" which was usually our main office. If I had written as Chief of Office Group A, the letter heading in the left, top-hand corner, and our letter had printed in that respect "SS-WVHA", and underneath "Office Group A." Had it not said that, and if it does not say it on the heading, and I sign it "I.V."; I signed in other words on behalf of the Chief. The file note doesn't mean a thing here. Any document which I signed in October 1942 I would never have been able to sign as Chief of the Office Group if it was so important that actually only Pohl could have signed it. What would Amtsgruppe A have to do with it anyway?
Q If I may answer your question, Amtsgruppe A had to do with it because it was the financial office of the WVHA. Explain, if you will, why it was that Melmer who was chief of Amt A-2 was in charge of transporting the loot to the Reichsband, and explain, if you will, why it was that Vogt, who was chief of Amt-4, was in charge of the auditing of the loot in Lublin, and was sent out to Lublin to carry out the check. Those all indicate that it was handled by Amtsgruppe A, doesn't it?
A I would like to say first of all that Melmer was not chief of Amt-2 at any time.
Q Excuse me--you have told us at least three different times, while you were sitting there on the stand, that Melmer was in charge of Amt-2. I will find it in the transcript and show it to you, if you like.
A Melmer was a member of Office Group A, which I never dis Court No. II, Case No. 4.puted.
He was in charge of the Main Treasury Department. He was, as it were, the man who was in charge of the treasury, and he would issue money or receive money, but he was never chief of Office A-2. I never said that. And in that capacity he did business as the man in charge of the treasury.
I should perhaps refer to the fact here, that when Pohl came back from his conversation with the Vice-President of the Reichsband he asked me to call on him, and he told me, "Frank, I talked today with Pohl. A number of valuable things must be turned over to the Reichsband from the East. For that I need a reliable man who is used to handling money and goods."
Q It was just a coincidence that he happened to be in Amt A-2, is that right?
A That was not an accident. He was in charge of the treasury department which was why he was so good at it.
Q And that is the reason why Vogt was sent out to Lublin to carry out the auditing, because he was in charge of Amt 4, and was an expert auditor?
A In my affidavit of January 1946--1947, I said that before the auditing--that is, when I sent Vogt to Lublin, I did not know that the auditing was concerned with the Action Reinhardt because Lublin had a garrison treasury just like hundreds of other places, and it was entirely possible that irregularities had occurred on the part of somebody, or other matters which had come to Pohl's knowledge caused that auditing in Lublin to take place. I never said that Vogt went to Lublin because of the Reinhardt Action. He went simply to generally examine the treasury at Lublin, and only when he came back-
Q No matter what he went for. After he got there, and after he got there at your orders, he made an audit of the loot that had been confiscated through the Action. Isn't that right?
A He had to come across it, because he looked at the books, and in the books-
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q He just accidentally came across it? Well, I submit to you that it will be up to the Tribunal to decide from these indications whether or not you carried out this task as chief of Amt or as deputy to Pohl.
But, let me ask you this: Isn't it the fact that you were taking the position here on the stand that you carried out this task as chief, as deputy, and not as chief of A merely to protect the defendant Fanslau because he succeeded you as chief of Amtsgruppe A, and this action was continued after his succession? Isn't that the reason you are taking this position, which is entirely unreasonable from the documents?
A No, sir.
MR. ROBBINS: Would this be a convenient time to take a recess?
MARSHAL: There will be a recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, I ask you who, after you left the WVHA, continued to exercise your function in regard to Action Reinhardt? Was that Georg Loerner as Pohl's deputy, or was that Fanslau, as chief of Amtsgruppe A?
A Mr. Prosecutor, four or five letters to say the least, which were addressed to the Reichsfuehrer concerning the watches after my departure--all five of them were signed by Pohl, and apparently they had been drafted by Melmer.
Q I ask you if after you left the WVHA, if Amtsgruppe A, as far as you know, had anything to do with Action Reinhardt?
A Only in pure matters of cash. I would like to limit this to the Treasury alone. That is to say, they took the money as they did so far for the Reich.
Q That was under A-II?
A A-II, because Melmer was a member of A-II.
Q Do you recall the document which the prosecution marked for evidence on the cross examination of Pohl, which was Exhibit 543, which was Pohl's order on the 4th of July 1944. It dealt with the administration of Jewish property values and was addressed to all the main office chiefs, higher SS and Police Leaders, and Amtsgruppe B and D. You also remember that that order which, mind you, is dated the 4th of July 1944, was addressed to Amt A-IV and Amt A-I under the defendant Fanslau. Do you have any idea why they were sent to I and to IV?
A In that document, which I recall very well, according to my opinion they did not speak about the actual Reinhardt Action, but they just spoke about the seizure of Jewish property, generally speaking.
Q Do you recall that Thursday morning when Pohl was examined on it, Judge Phillips asked him what R-E-I-N-H meant on the final note, and he said this is about Action Reinhardt. It had a file note A-2,3 on Court No. II, Case No. 4.it, M-E, which I supposed stands for Melmer, and was addressed to A-IV and to A-I. Undoubtedly it referred to Action Reinhardt?
A Mr. Prosecutor, from the documents, after my departure, I had the impression that particular file note which you just mention-R-E-I-N-H/M-E, that stands for Melmer, that this was used for all seizures of Jewish property, because that file note appears with the document dealing with the watches. It appears in '44, as you correctly said, and this particular general order-
Q Tell us then what A-I and A-IV on July 1944 had to do with the administration of Jewish property?
A I can only understand that to the effect that A-I participated in the financial question, in other words, the cash; and A-IV came in for the final checking.
Q And at that time, Fanslau was charged with the direction of Amtsgruppe A, wasn't he, in July '44?
A July '44, yes.
Q He says in his affidavit that occurred in May or June '44, and I believe that you confirmed that in your direct examination. I would like to ask you, between the time that you left the WVHA on the first of September '43 and the time when Fanslau was actually charged with Amtsgruppe A, which was in May and June of 1944, it's true, isn't it, that Fanslau was acting chief of Amtsgrupp A because he was your deputy all along, and prior to that time? Fanslau was acting chief of A during that period?