He made no observations on these visits -- and under these circumstances could make no kind of observations -- which would have concluded that crimes were committed on the inmates.
The fact that inmates were used in only one of the numerous factories directed by the defendant Bobermin is sufficient to prove the defendant Bobermin's objection to the employment of inmates.
The letter dated 2 April 1944 submitted by the prosecution as document No. 2006 does not portray the opinion of the defendant Bobermin but that of the SS economist in Cracow at that time. The defendant Bobermin was not interested in the taking over of the Bonarka brickyard in the former General Government. This can be seen from his reserved judgement of the profit prospects. And it was due to this that the Benarka brickyard was actually not taken over by office W2.
Free laborers were employed in the other Brick Works controlled by Office W2. Their employment cannot be considered as slave-labor.
To Point (f): SS-Industry.
In his opening statement, the Prosecutor, in a special paragraph dealt with the SS-Industries. In the accusation of typical lack of conscience and striving towards personal enrichment, made against the SS-Industries, I cannot see a crime against the Rules of War or a Crime against Humanity. The SS-Industries are further charged with: a) Slave-labor, that is, the exploitation and destruction of so-called inferior persons: and b) Plundering, by expropriation of valuable industries in the occupied territories.
I have already expressed my opinion of the charge of slave-labor. As far as the charge of plundering, through expropriation of valuable industries in the occupied territories is concerned, I will produce evidence that the Brick Works of the East German Building Materials Works Ostdeutsche Baustoffwerke) had already been requisitioned before the defendant Bobermin was informed of the economic tasks before the WVHA. I will also produce evidence that Office W2, under the defendant Bobermin, did not expropriate any Plants. The ownership of the plants administered by Office W2 remained unchanged.
Office W2 did not requisition these Plants, they had already been requisitioned by the Main Trustees Office East. These Plants were not plundered; on the contrary, considerable pains were taken to out them into operation and to improve them.
To point 4 of the Indictment (Membership of Criminal Organizations):
The defendant Bobermin was a member of the SS-Cavalry until January 1940. According to the verdict of IMT, the SS-Cavalry has been expressly exempted from those circles of persons declared criminal. As I have already stated in the case of the defendant Aub Volk.
Also, according to the verdict of IMT, these members who did not join voluntarily, but whose membership was based on a legal decree were exempted from the circle of persons declared criminal. The defendant Bobermin did not join the Waffen-SS in January 1940 voluntarily, but because of a Draft order calling him up into the Waffen-SS. His men bership in the Waffen-SS is therefore based on a legal decree.
The employment contracts with the East German Building Materials Works and the Brick-Cement A.G., Document No. 2126, German document bock Volume XVI, page 94, exhibited by the Prosecution carry no weight in deciding the question whether the defendant Bobermin was a member of an Organization declared criminal. Through these employment contracts with the East German Building Works or Brick-Cement A.G., neither membership in the SS nor a service rank nor a service position in the SS was indicated. Both the undertakings concerned must be judged legally in the same way as the conclusion of an Employment Contract with any other private enterprise.
Further, according to the verdict of IMT, these members do not belong to the group of persons declared criminal, who (a) had no knowledge that the Organization was engaged in criminal activities (b) who themselves did not participate in these crimes.
These stipulations also are given in the case of the defendant Bobermin, so that for these reasons as well, membership to the group of persons declared criminal is eliminated.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there just one more statement ready to be delivered? Any other? Just one. We'll hear you now.
DR. MAYER (Counsel for defendant Kiefer): I have only one copy of my opening speech for the interpreter.
May it please the Tribunal: Your Honor! The prosecution when carrying through its case has submitted a number of documents which mention Amtsgruppe C and the chief of this Amtsgruppe, Dr. ing. Kammler in connection with various building construction projects and measures. In its opening statement (page 77 of the German translation last paragraph) it furthermore expressed in this connection that the defendants Eirenschmalz and Kiefer as members of Amtsgruppe C of the WVHA played a leading part in this building program and are responsible for the maltreatment, torture and murder of innumerable hundreds of concentration camp inmates.
It is up to the Court to decide whether this contention of the Prosecution finds its justification in the evidence concerning the defendant Kiefer submitted by the Prosecution. I do not believe that the conclusion reached by the Prosecution is well-founded.
The documents submitted do not give a clear and distinct picture of the conditions as they really were; they are taken out of their context and their contents therefore can easily lead to false conclusions as to the actual facts concerning the structure and the tasks of Amtsgruppe C of the WVHA. This applies to the whole sphere of work with the carrying out of which Dr. Kammler has been entrusted and which in the course of time as the war progressed was continuously extended. The original task of Dr. Kammler, namely the direction of Amtsgruppe C, for this reason receded more and more into the background.
The defense will therefore try to show that two separate and distinct spheres of work were united in the person of Kammler, one of these was carried out by Amtsgruppe C while the other was carried out by Kammler with the help of other offices (Dienststellen) e.g. a special staff especially formed for this task.
The size and nature of the first mentioned sphere of work is shown in the distribution chart of Amtsgruppe C for the year 1943 (Document No. 1288 Exhibit No. 44 in Document Book II of the Prosecution) and the organization plan of the WVHA of 3 March 1942 (Document No. 111 Exhibit No. 38 is Document Book II of the Prosecution) which up to 1945 was kept up to date by corresponding corrections.
Kammler's second sphere of work consisted in the carrying out of various armament tasks. The carrying out of these was thus completely outside the scope of the WVHA and the Amtsgruppe C and comprised in broad lines the so-called "Jaeger" program, the shifting of industry underground, and the so-called V weapon program which for example included the tasks in the camps Dora and Laura. All these armament construction measures were secret so that only the persons immediately concerned were acquainted with them. The above-mentioned special staff which was at Kammler's disposal for this purpose, consisted of members of the Waffen-SS, the Luftwaffe, the Navy, and the Army who were released from their units or offices and were transferred to this special staff. There was no connection between this special staff and Amtsgruppe C. In this connection I refer to Document No. 2144 Exhibit No. 368 in Document Book XIII of the Prosecution which shows that Dr. Kammler when he was entrusted with the carrying through of all preparations for the use of V2, was in possession of full authority and was only subordinated to the Reich Fuehrer-SS Himmler, the Commander of the Reserve Army and the Chief of the Armament Command. Hereby is only of importance that this order of Himmler is not directed to Dr. Kammler in his capacity as chief of Amtsgruppe C and that the chief of the WVHA Oswald Pohl had not even been informed that the order was "top secret". This special staff of Kammler it has been issued. Besides is furthermore mentioned in the evidence of the Prosecution namely in Document No. 1580 Exhibit No. 303 in Document Book XI. However in the above-mentioned distribution charts of Amtsgruppe C of the WVHA it was never mentioned.
It can be expected that the Prosecution in its final statement will point out that all these documents as far as they deal with the construction program and production of armaments usually describe the chief of these measures, Dr. Kammler, as chief of Amtsgruppe C. This is easily explained, for Kammler was chief of Amtsgruppe C and whenever he appeared in connection with the carrying out of these special measures, for those who were not familiar with internal conditions, he appeared to be engaged in tasks coming within the sphere of Amtsgruppe C of the WVHA.
Often Kammler is only called chief of Amtsgruppe C in this connection for identification purposes.
As the entire armament tasks do not come at all into the sphere of Amtsgruppe C of the WVHA and were not carried out by it, under no circumstances can this Amtsgruppe and its departments be charged with the results occasioned by these measures regarding the use of concentration camp inmates and their treatment.
Within its proper sphere of work the Prosecution charges Amtsgruppe C with the construction of concentration camps, their enlargement and extension and the erection of gas chambers and crematoria. As far as this concerns the defendant Kiefer it must be stated that in no manner whatsoever did he participate in any of these projects. His tasks in Amt C II which he directed, lay in quite a different sphere. I should not like to omit to mention that in the document submitted so far no evidence is shown of Kiefer's collaboration in such construction measures. As far as the documents in question bear dictation marks, i.e. as far as they show from which office inside the Amtsgruppe C they originate, the dictation mark of Amt C II is nowhere to be found. Indeed, this is not possible as any document which deal with constructions in concentration camps or contain requirements of inmates for any purpose, have never been signed by Kiefer.
The defendant Max Kiefer was working in the Reich Luftfahrt Ministry during the years 1936-41. The scope of his activities was the department (Sachgebiet) "House and Settlement Buildings". As a result of his previous activities he was possessed of special expert knowledge and experience which he could utilize in the Reich Luftfarht Ministry.
At about the same time Dr. ing. Kammler was head of the department "Building above ground" (Hochbau) in the Luftfahrt Ministry and in this capacity the superior of the defendant Kiefer.
Kammler apparently noticed the expert work carried out by the defendant. He therefore made use of the fact that Kiefer in August 1941 was released from the Luftfahrt Ministry for the Army in order to have him transferred by the High Command of the Army to the Waffen-SS. This transfer actually took place on 1 September 1941. The SS Operational Main Office to which Kiefer had to report referred him to the Office "Budget and Buildings" (Haushalt und Bauten). Kammler had left the Luftfahrt Ministry about May or June 1940 and became director of the Office of building in the then "Budget and Buildings" office. Therefore Kiefer had to report to Kammler on account of his draft order (Gestellungsbefehl) in September 1941.
At that time Dr. Kallmer told him that he himself had induced Kiefer's transfer to the Waffen-SS.
At this discussion between Kammler and Kiefer the following was established:
1) That Kiefer's activities should only last for the period of his compulsory military service which he has herewith to serve with the Amt Beuten (Building Office) and
2) that his working field should comprise to an essential part the execution of the same tasks which he had successfully carried out at the Reich Luftfahrt Ministry but which will now be for the Waffen-SS and that his working field would remain limited insofar and
3) that his salary should be equal in amount to the salary he got at the Reich Luftfahrt Ministry.
According to this agreement the defendant Kiefer was charged with
1) the preparation of the building projects of housing in post war times,
2) the building of hospitals for the Waffen-SS,
3) schools and National Political Institutes and
4) agricultural buildings according to plans.
On no account the drawing up of building plans for individual buildings was to be understood by this, but mainly the establishment of standard figures and standard drawings in general. These standard figures and standard drawings had to be submitted to the Chief of the Amtsgruppe were they remained until they were needed by the lower or middle channels of authority. The Amt C II was not informed as to whether and when such a case of need occurred, because its participation was no longer required, as for the construction of a building, a special building plan based on the standard figures and standard drawings had to be drafted by the lower and middle channels of authority in their own competency. Kiefer had no connection with other Amtsgruppen or with other offices of Amtsgruppe C. His plans were never basic plans in themselves, he therefore never carried out a building project himself, and thus was not forced to get in touch with other offices within or outside Amtsgruppe C concerning requests for building materials or financial means.
In the course of the submission of evidence it will be of significance to go more into details of the individual working spheres of Amt C II. From this its nature and character becomes evident and any connection with the building projects brought to the charge of Amtsgruppe C is out of the question. Furthermore it will have to be proved that some tasks of Amt C II were never carried out and were actually only established on paper according to the organization plan. Within the compass of his working sphere it was impossible for the defendant Kiefer in his capacity of Chief of Amt C II to gain any information of incidents in the concentration camps, of labor demand concerning inmates and of the manner in which the inmates were treated, let alone actively to take part in any way. It may not be overlooked hereby that the Main Economic and Administrative Office was a very extensive office, widely spread as regards location of rooms and not al all housed in one single block of buildings, thus making it difficult to acquire information of this kind from a merely technical point of view, especially as such matters were completely outside of the working sphere of the defendant Kiefer.
The Amtsgruppe C was never directed by the defendant Kiefer in his capacity as deputy for Kammler, as the Prosecution maintains in its opening statement. However, in Document Book II the Prosecution presents a Document No. 1244 us Exhibit No. 45 by which Kammler on 6 September 1943, orders that the defendant Kiefer should act as his deputy on principle until further notice. But it must be pointed out that the same document in paragraph 2 makes it clear at once that Kiefer, owing to an already existing illness, could not actually carry out this duty as deputy and that therefore a certain SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Brahler will be charged to act as Kammler's deputy. The defense will attempt to prove that Max Kiefer never dealt with official affairs of Kammler's as his deputy and that this order of Kammler's actually did not come into effect.
In spite of his repeated absence from Berlin Dr. Kammler never relaxed his control on his office. By means of an organized courier-service all the mail and all other matters coming in as well as the mail which he had to sign for Amt C were delivered to him whether he was on official travels or on leave. Therefore the defendant Kiefer, after his resumption of work at the end of September or in early October 1943, gave his documents to be signed to the courier exactly as before, without signing official documents as deputy of Kammler. There was no change at all of the whole customary course of affairs. As results from the organization plan of the Main Economic and Administrative Office (WVHA) dated 3 March 1942 (Document Book No. II, Document No. III, Exhibit No. 38) a Professor Dr. Schleif was taken into Amtsgruppe C as permanent deputy for Dr. Kammler.
In 1935 the defendant Kiefer became a member of the Allegmeine SS. Originally this was done in the intention to create for himself a basis for his vocational activity as an independent architect, which intention, however, was made ineffective by his employment in the Reich Luftfahrt Ministry in 1936, as set forth earlier. Apart from the membership itself he never had any contact with the Allgemeine SS in the following time, as this was impossible for him for sheer lack of time in the orbit of his work. Since 1941 Kiefer has been a member of the Waffen-SS too, which membership was effected without his being asked through a transfer to the Waffen-SS by the Supreme Command of the Army. According to the sentences passed by the International Military Tribunal this cannot be used against him as, in this respect, he ranks with those "who were called to the ranks by the state in such a way that they had no other choice, and who did not commit such crimes."
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until two o'clock, and at that time we will hear any other opening statements.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1400 hours, 15 May 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will indicate that the defendant Frank is present in person at this session.
DR. FRITSCH (Counsel for the defendant Hans Baier): May it please the Tribunal, neither in the Indictment nor in the submission of evidence has the Prosecution accused the defendant Hans Baier of a clearly defined separate crime. It asserts participation as an accessory and in Article II, 2 of the Control Council Law No. 10 has established "planning" as a crime in itself in the obvious intention of implicating the defendant Baier as well under a punishable offense, inasmuch as it tries to construe the existence of a common plan or conspiracy among the defendants. It will be up to the final speech to prove that to consider "planning" and the other definitions of partnership listed in Control Council Law No. 10 as far as they do not concern participation, incitement or abetting under the provisions of the Penal Code of the German Reich a crime, contradicts the London Statute and the verdict of the International Military Tribunal and that they cannot be brought into accord with the generally accepted legal principle of "nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poene sine lege", because even under the German Law valid before 1933 they constituted a punishable offense only after the deed had been performed.
As, furthermore, it is not clearly stated in which of the generally asserted total offenses the defendant Baier is supposed to have participated, I shall set forth in detail and prove his activity during the years from 1933 to 1945.
1. The Common Planning or the Conspiracy.
What the Prosecution is actually trying to do is to use the fact that the defendant worked at the WVHA as a basis for the alleged connection between the conspirators. I shall prove that the defendant Baier was transferred to the WVHA in 1943 without any initiative on his part and that his only task in this office consisted in making revisions of a financial nature by examining reports of the German Economic Enterprises, the GMBH, submitted to him, as prescribed by commercial law.
Only in this connection may he be called one of the "executing assistants" of the defendant Oswald Pohl. It will be proven that there is absolutely no causal connection between the crimes which, according to the Prosecution, were committed in the concentration camps and the activity of the defendant Baier, and I shall further prove that as for the relationship between the defendants and their respective activities within the WVHA, a common plan or a conspiracy are entirely out of the question. It will be proven that even from an objective point of view it is incorrect to say that to find and apply means and ways for the financing of the SS, of the National Socialistic German Worker's Party belonged to the plan, the conspiracy under accusation and that, even if such plans should have existed without the knowledge of the defendant Baier, he had and could not have any knowledge of them.
I shall bring the necessary counter-evidence also for the other assertions of the Prosecution, namely, that it was part of the common plan to establish concentration camps, to maintain them, to manage them and to administrate them, and to elaborate and carry out plans for the purpose of serving several industries, plans and enterprises with manpower and output of concentration camp inmates, to supply human experimental subjects for criminal medical experiments, and to carry out the elimination of the Jews.
II. War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity As already stated, the defendant Baier is not charged with any specific separate criminal act.
Beyond that I shall prove in point of fact that Baier also was not involved as participant either in the organization of the concentration camps or in their administration. The fact that Baier did not even know, nor could know, of the crimes in the concentration camps enumerated by the Prosecution - such as maltreatment, killings, starvings, medical experiments - will also be proved.
Inasfar as the defendant Baier has been confronted with documents which cite his name and which are at the same time connected with the Reinhardt-Action and the "Osti", it will be shown that Baier had nothing to do with either the Reinhardt-Program or the "Osti", since these actions were already concluded when he started his duties; and that these documents were pertaining solely to an administrative activity which did not even require the knowledge of the actual contents of the Reinhardt-Program or of the task of the "Osti".
The Defense is furthermore in a position to prove that the defendant has done everything in his power to ease the hard lot of the prisoners, which he recognized in the curtailment of liberty, and that the preparation of a wages scheme for the prisoners, contrary to the opinion of the Prosecution, must serve for Baier's exoneration.
III. Membership of a Criminal Organization.
Baier does not deny his membership in the SS which the International Military Tribunal has declared a criminal organization. It will be proved, however, that Baier, who was at first a finance official and subsequently a Navy official, was drafted in 1937 from the Navy into the SS Special Duty Troops and that consequently his membership in the SS Special Duty Troops was not voluntary according to the legal basis.
I shall furthermore show in support of the negative evidence solely remaining to me that from Baier's character, which expressed itself also in his particularly good family life, one must draw the conclusion that he was opposed to violence against and any inhuman treatment of another person, and that he was always ready to help.
In order to carry out my offered proofs and defendant Baier's exoneration from all counts of the accusation, I shall question in cross examination the defendant Oswald Pohl and some of the other defendants, call to the witness box witnesses named by me, and defendant Baier himself, and furthermore, I shall present documents as far as is required.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
DR. BRACHT (For Dr. Froeschmann, counsel for the defendant Karl Mummenthey): May it please the Tribunal, Your Honors:
The prosecution accuses the defendant Karl MUMMENTHEY of
1) Taking part in a common conspiracy for the commission, of war crimes and crimes against humanity,
2) Committing war crimes and
3) Crimes against humanity, as well as
4) Remaining a member of the SS, and thus, of a criminal organization, after 1 September 1939, although he knew that the SS was used for the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
In refutation of these accusations, the counsel for the defendant MUMMENTHEY will prove the following:
1) MUMMENTHEY has not taken part in any conspiracy. In the course of his professional career, he joined the DEST, and when he did so he did not have any idea of the close connection of this enterprise with the SS and the later WVHA. During his activity as manager and as Chief of the Office W I he kept strictly within the sphere of his duties. His tasks there were of a purely commercial and economic-legal nature. MUMMENTHEY had no connection whatsoever with another defendant or with another group of persons who aimed at the planning or preparation of war crimes or crimes against humanity. Inasfar as he did have something to do with one or the other of the defendants within the sphere of activity of the enterprise, these discussions served only to fulfill the economic purpose of the DEST, which he represented.
2) The prosecution has not specified the charges against MUMMENTHEY. Neither the submitted documents nor the evidence given by witnesses make these clear. I consider such a procedure as objectionable and request the indictment be rejected insofar as this is concerned.
a) The prosecution obviously wants to connect MUMMENTHEY with the use of POW's and foreign forced laborers in armament production Court No. II, Case No. 4.and thus derive the fact that he has committed a violation against the international regulations of the Hague Convention on Land warfare and the Geneva Convention.
b) In refutation of these charges, the counsel for the defendant will try to prove that MUMMENTHEY had no knowledge of the accidental circumstances connected with this.
Neither the setting up of concentration camps nor their maintenance were under his control, nor did he have any influence on the treatment of the prisoners and their use in the enterprises of the WVHA.
Therefore, MUMMENTHEY cannot be considered principal, nor participant, nor instigator nor even as accessory in such war crimes.
c) The defense will submit evidence, which will prove that the setting up of concentration camps and the transportation, treatment, feeding, clothing, accommodation and release of prisoners were matters outside his sphere of influence.
The defense will further prove that MUMMENTHEY overstepped his power and for purely humane reasons repeatedly tried to ease the hard fate of the prisoners and effect their release.
Finally it will prove that MUMMENTHEY exposed himself repeatedly to the danger of being called to account for aiding the prisoners.
3) The defense will show by witnesses and documents the competence and powers of MUMMENTHEY and prove that MUMMENTHEY did everything which could be reasonably expected of him in this respect. He tried to remedy whatever abuses he heard of. It was he who was responsible for numerous suggestions for improvements, which turned out to be most advantageous for the prisoners in the DEST workshops.
Due to the rigid organization of the WVHA with its strictly defined limits of power he did not have the chance to perceive the real conditions existing in the concentration camps and to do some Court No. II, Case No. 4.thing about them.
Even with regard to the enterprises which belonged to the DEST, he had only a limited power in so far as issuing orders was concerned and this was restricted to purely internal questions concerning the plant. Insofar as the employment of the prisoners and their treatment inside the plants is concerned, this also, was not within his sphere of influence.
4) All this proves that MUMMENTHEY did not participate in the crimes, as listed under 1-3 and that it was not possible for him to do so.
5) In 1934 as a law clerk MUMMENTHEY joined the legal preparatory service of the mounted SS, to which is not a criminal organization according to the judgment of the IMT. The fact that he was a member of the SS had nothing to do with his receiving a position in the DEST. On the contrary he got this job in the usual way through the appointments agency. This alone refutes the statement that he joined the SS and later on held a position in the WVHA with the intention of joining a conspiracy.
In 1940, as an SS man, he was called up into the Waffen-SS and he was granted leave and given permission to wear civilian clothes.
When later on the position of a so-called Fachfuehrer (Specialist Officer) was set up in the Waffen-SS, he was appointed Hauptsturmfuehrer and later on Sturmbannfuehrer.
MUMMENTHEY received no training in the Waffen-SS, he also did not take part in any Officers training course. He had nothing to do with being called up into the Waffen-SS. Consequently, he did not know at that time that the SS was used for criminal actions.
DR. RATZ (For Defendant Pook): May it please the Tribunal, we have not received the translation yet, and I would like to wait until such a time as the translation has arrived.
THE PRESIDENT: How many pages in your opening statement?
DR. RATZ: Thirteen pages, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Thirteen?
DR. RATZ: Thirteen pages, Your Honor. That is correct.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you inquired about the translation? Have they started to make it yet?
DR. RATZ: As far as I know, it has already been translated, and it is just now being mimeographed, so in that way I expect it to arrive here in a very short period of time.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will wait for it then. We will recess for a few minutes, and as soon as it is ready we will convene again.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. PAUL RATZ (for defendant Hermann Pook):
Mr. President:
1) Defendant Dr. Hermann POOK is a dentist by profession. He was employed as dentist by the Office D III of the WVHA (Economic and Administrative Main Office) and is charged in the indictment in his capacity as dentist. In view of the multitude of serious accusations and incriminating evidence compiled by the prosecution against the defendants, the indictment against defendant Hermann POOK appears to be a trifling matter. The indictment contains only one sentence which involves this defendant who is designated as "Chief Dental Surgeon of the WVHA": "Defendant Hermann POOK was entrusted with the dental care of concentration camp inmates" (page 6 of the German text) and in the opening statement of the prosecution too he is mentioned only in two sentences: "Defendant POOK was Chief Dental Surgeon in office D III, all Dental Surgeons of concentration camps were subordinate to him. One of their tasks was the removal of gold teeth from deceased prisoners". (Page 11 of the German text) and: "Defendant POOK was Chief of the dentists who were supervising the extractions of gold teeth of corpses in all concentration camps by authority of the WVHA". (Page 58 of the German text). Notwithstanding, I am far from adhering to an illusion with regard to the severity of the accusation against this defendant too. In clear and concise formulation the standpoint of the prosecuting authority is presumably the following: Defendant Hermann POOK is accused by reason of his responsible position in the field of dental surgery, to have contributed in a criminal manner to the "Institution for violence, wholesale crime and human vileness" as the Prosecution describes the system of concentration camps.
2) In order to clarify the responsibility according to criminal law of defendant Hermann POOK it is necessary in the first instance to define his official position. This will show the following: The subordination for a dental surgeon in the Waffen-SS as well as in the Army was threefold:
As far as the health service was concerned, he was subordinate to the Physician of the Unit;
in all matters relating to discipline he was subordinate to the Commander of the Unit; and professionally he was subordinate to the Leading Dental Surgeon of the superior Association.
He could, therefore, receive orders from three different offices and he was responsible to three different offices. If one of these offices gave an order to the dentist, this same office was of course responsible for the order given and not the other two offices.
The Leading Dental Surgeon of the superior association on his part was likewise responsible to three different offices. He had a separate superior on each field: medical, disciplinary and professional.
Dr. Hermann POOK was the Leading Dental Surgeon of office D III.
What does the position of Leading Dental Surgeon of the Waffen-SS entail?
The main office of the entire dental service of the Waffen-SS was Office XIV ("Dental Service") in the Office Group D of the Operational Main Office ("Medical Service of the Waffen-SS"). This office XIV was competent and responsible for the dental service throughout the SS, not only within the sphere of the Operational Main Office, but also for the action spheres of the other main offices of the SS, therefore also for the sphere of the WVHA. He had to attend to the installation and staffing of dental clinics as well as to the supply of the necessary materials and medical supplies, and besides he had to attend to the professional supervision of dentists and dentists' personnel.
Owing to the expansion of the dental service of the Waffen-SS during the war it became necessary to create the position of Leading Dental Surgeons. This was an Intermediate Instance which in the case of larger units, such as divisions supervised the dentists employed, in order to relieve the Central Instance, Office XIV.
After the inspection of the concentration camps, was incorporated to the WVHA, as Office Group D, it became necessary to create also in Office D III (Medical Service of the Concentration Camps) the position of a Leading Dental Surgeon as Intermediate Instance for the supervision of the Camp Dentists and as professional adviser to the Superintending Physician and Chief of Office Dr. LOLLING. The defendant Hermann POOK held this position since the end of 1943, being professionally subordinate to Office XIV (Dental Service of the Waffen-SS) as every other Leading Dental Surgeon, and receiving therefrom his orders and instructions concerning the dental professional field. It is not merely to dispute words if, contrary to the statement of the prosecution, it is emphasized that defendant Hermann POOK was not Chief Dental Surgeon of the WVHA. There was no Chief Dental Surgeon in the whole of the Waffen-SS. A Chief Dental Surgeon, i.e. a dentist with independent authority to direct subordinated dentists was not necessary and would have been in contradiction to the idea of a centralized organization of the Dental Service of the Waffen-SS. Details will show that Hermann POOK as Leading Dentist of LOLLING had no real authority to act independently, especially that he could not give any independent orders to Camp Dentists, nor did he ever do so.
It would be foolish on my part if I would expect to be able to exculpate by this evidence alone defendant Hermann POOK for illtreatments or other atrocities which the Camp Dentists are alleged to have committed on prisoners, because, after all, it was POOK's duty as Leading Dental Surgeon to exercise adequate professional supervision over the dentists. However, there is a marked difference whether responsibility arises from the position of Chief, who acts independently and is generally responsible for his subordinates, or merely from the position of a supervising officer in the professional-technical field. Furthermore the accusation against Hermann POOK does obviously not stress particularly dental ill-treatment committed on living prisoners, but concerns the removal of gold teeth from corpses of prisoners. In this connection it is of the greatest importance to realize that POOK was merely Leading Dentist and as such only had to supervise the Camp Dentists in a professional - technical manner.