THE MARSHAL: Tribunal II is again in session BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Before the interruption, witness, you were telling us that the W Chiefs could make recommendations to the RSHA as to the length of time which an inmate might be kept in the concentration camp. I ask you if as a master of fact it wasn't required that the managers of the SS industries make reports on inmates who were working in so-called important work locations. Isn't it true that such reports were required?
A. Reports of important work locations?
Q. Yes, reports made by the Chiefs of the W offices, reports by the managers of the SS industries on inmates who were working at important jobs.
A. I cannot recall that.
Q. Will your turn to Document Book 16, Document No.1972, on page 19 of the English, and it is Exhibit 429. I don't seem to have the German page. Do you have the document?
A. No, I have not yet found it.
Q. It is the third document in the book. Exhibit No. 429. Document No 1972?
A. Yes, Document No 1972, I have found it.
Q. That is a letter by Grimm to the manager of DAW at Buchenwald, and to the manager of DEST, and it states that the main section 1-5 request a report of those prisoners who are occupied on important work locations, and who, therefore, cannot be immediately released or exchanged. It is what the document says, isn't it? The following document which is--excuse me, and the letter from DAW to the Main Office Budget and Buildings Main Section 1-5 refers to reports on prisoners who can not immediately be released in the event that this is intended. I would like to go onto the next subject matter and refer--
A. Well, I would like to say something on that matter.
Q. Just a moment. Will you turn to Document Book No. 2, please.
A. Unfortunately I don't have document book No. 2 with me here.
THE PRESIDENT: You asked the witness a question and referred him to a document, and then did not permit him to answer, and he insists that he wishes to answer.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. All right, let me put the question to you again, witness. It is true, isn't it, that the reports were made by managers of the SS Industries on prisoners who were working on important work locations for the purpose of retaining those prisoners for a longer period of time?
A. No, not for a longer period of time, Your Honor. The letter has completely a different meaning. If a prisoner, for example, had received a special training during the plan, for example, for specialized work on a maching, something like that, and we tried to avoid their being taken out of the plant within twenty-four hours, and here notification was to take place before the twenty-four hours, before the time, so that a new worker could be appointed to take this workers place.
We were not trying to keep a prisoner who was to be released in the plant. Of course, such a prisoner cannot be released from one day to the other because it will hamper the operations of the plant.
Q. This document does not say anything about retaining for a twenty-four hour period, does it? It just says "Those who cannot be released," I emphasize the word "immediately".
A. No, it is stated here "those workers on important jobs, and who can not be immediately released", I emphasize the word immediately.
Q. As a matter of fact you knew that inmates were kept in not only for the period of time for which they were assigned to the camp, but supposed to have been incarcerated in the camp for years and years beyond that period, isn't that true?
A. No, to the contrary, because the plant tried to try to get well trained and efficient workers released so they could employ them as civilian workers.
Q. And that had been on a very large scale?
A. I believe so, yes.
Q. About how many inmates would you estimate were released, and who became free workers in the DEST and other industries?
A. I can not possibly state the number in regard to all the plants. I could make too much of a mistake in the number.
Q. Would it be something like ten or twenty over a period of several years?
A. I am certain that the figures are considerably higher. I am convinced of that.
Q. You know, as a matter of fact, however that inmates were kept for much longer than period for which they were originally assigned to the camps, is that or is that not true?
A. Certainly not in regard to Economic Enterprises, because they were interested in getting these people released from confinement.
Through them they would be certain of having them as civilian workers.
Q. When we were talking about the defendant Volk, you stated that he merely handled personal matters. Would you turn to Document Book No. 2?
A. I did not say that the defendant Volk had only dealt with personnel questions. I said that he was the legal export, and that he was an expert on legal matters. I did not even refer to personnel plans, and did not say any thing about it. It is not known to me that he ever worked on personnel matters.
Q. Excuse me. No, I don't refer to personnel matters. I said, personal legal matters. He worked on your personal legal matters, did he not?
A. No, he took care of all legal and traditional matters which accumulated in the holding company. He prepared notary matters, and matters pertaining to civil matters on which he advised the Dest Company, and so on, that is what I said.
Q. He also acted as your personal legal adviser, did he not?
A. Yes, I also consulted him on these questions, because I participated in them, and as my private secretary and my personal assistant he took care of taxation matters, and matrimonial and matters pertaining to other legal questions.
Q. Do you have Book No. 2 in your hands?
A. No, I don't have Book No. 2 with me.
Q. Will you turn to page 52 of the German Document Book, which is Exhibit No. 30, which is document No.-2147. Do you have the document?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. It states that Volk as well as the Chief of Amt-2 and Maurer May and other persons participated in a negotiation about a site for concentration camp Stutthoff. Are you informed as to the subject mat ter of this conversation?
A. In the conversation between Volk and Maurer?
Q. Yes.
A. I only know what I have read here in this report.
Q. It is true that Volk negotiated for the purchase of a site for the concentration camp Stutthof, is it not?
A. No, this was not Volk's task. He participated in that discussion as the manager of Building and Home Sites Ltd, because this was to be purchased over for the DWB. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the purchase of a site for a concentration camp, because that was bought by the Reich and not through the German Economic Enterprises, and for the purchase by the Reich it was carried out in the legal office of Amtsgruppe-A, and a problem on settlement was also connected with this. Volk acted here as business manager of the Home Site, and Construction Organization, which belonged to the DWB. (German Economic Enterprises.)
Q. It is perfectly clear from the document that Volk did participate in the negotiations, whatever his official status in the conversation was?
A. He participated in it but the negotiations did not only deal with the purchase of a site for the concentration camp, but he also had to deal with enterprises for the Economic Enterprises, Ltd. It says here that the German Economic Enterprises, G.m.b.H. wanted to purchase a site at Stutthof. That is something completely different than the purchase of a site for a concentration camp, which the Reich wanted to purchase. There are two purchases which are not shown there.
Q. This purchase you refer to is a purchase for one of the SS Industries, is that correct?
A. Yes, the site which was to be purchased for the German Economic Enterprises, DWB.
A. It was to be used for the enlargement of the economic plants which existed at that time.
Q. And it was planned that inmate labor would be used, was it not?
A. Yes, the comp had already been completed, and the plants were already operating. It was already an existing and operating police camp.
Q. And inmate labor was used in the industry?
A. The prisoners were already working in the plants which had already been established there.
Q. I would like to turn to the Defendant Klein and ask you when you first became acquainted with Klein?
A. I believe that this was either 1940 or 1941 or early in 1943. I don't know it exactly. It must have been one of the years, 1940 or '41 or 1943.
Q. Did he become one of your subordinates at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. What was his job at the time?
A. At that time he was the legal specialist for these special tasks. That is the Society for German Cultural Monuments, and then various installations, such as Extrastein Foundation, Prinz Heinrich Foundation, and Koenig Heinrich foundat. Later on the convalescent homes were added.
Q. Did he use inmate labor in this organization?
A. As far as I know prisoners were only used in the construction at Wewelsburg.
Q. What enterprise was he carrying out at Wewelsburg?
A. At Wewelsburg was an old ruin which was again to be reconstructed, and this reconstruction work was carried out during the first years by free workers. Later on, I believe it was at the outbreak of the war, but I don't remember the year exactly, prison labor was also used.
Q. Part of the proof in this case shows that the death rate at Wewelsburg was very high and that inmates were worked to death at that place. Do you know anything about that?
A. I don't have any knowledge of that from my own observations. I cannot imagine that, because this was an extraordinarily quiet construction place. There was no rush in the construction of this place, and the work was carried on for five or six years, and nothing special was accomplished. The Building Administration, and for the allocation of inmate labor, Standartenfuehrer Bartels were responsible. He was the man to whom the whole construction work was subordinate, and as far as I know, Gruppenfuehrer Tauberg had the supervision over this camp. He was the man who was in charge of the castle and he lived there. He was there all the time.
Q. Do you know how many inmates were working under Klein at Wewelsburg?
A. I estimate that in the construction of Wewelsburg perhaps three hundred inmates were used, but I don't know that number exactly.
Q. I will not ask you to turn to the document, but simply state that in Klein's report, one of his monthly reports, which is Exhibit 455 in Document Book XVII, Klein states that an additional nine hundred prisoners have been employed recently. I would like to turn now to a discussion of the Defendant Georg Loerner. Can you tell us when you first met Georg Loerner?
A. I have known Goerg Loerner since February, 1934, ever since he entered the SS.
Q. What position did he hold in your organization at that time?
A. At the time, as far as I can recall, he was the chief of the main department. Later on he became chief of an amt and finally he became chief of an amtsgruppe.
Q. Do you know whether he joined the SS voluntarily?
A. Yes. In peacetime there was only voluntary entry into the SS. Nobody could be conscripted.
Q. I think we have gone into his duties with regard to food and clothing sufficiently in the examination on yesterday. I would like to ask you if as deputy of the WVHA, the deputy chief, if he ever gave instructions to any of the members in Amtsgruppe A?
A. I don't think so. When he was my deputy I always continued to handle the affairs generally speaking, and when important decrees and orders were issued then they were either forwarded to me or they remained in my office until I returned. I don't believe that during my absence any basic and fundamental orders were issued by my deputy.
Q. Was he authorized to issue any instructions of any kind in your absence?
A. I never actually let go of the administration because I only left for a relatively short period of time, and therefore I always kept the fundamental orders and decisions in my hands. I did not issue any specific authority to anybody, because the person who represented me more or less had to exercise the supervision over the house when I was absent.
Q. He did represent you, did he not, in supervising Amtsgruppe W?
A. He was my representative officially speaking, but even there he did not have to represent me very much. As I have already said, I was always very close to handling these things, and I hardly ever left Berlin. Through the years from 1938 to 1945 I took a short leave on two occasions, and during these two furloughs I kept on working, and on the short trips from two to three days, it actually did not make it necessary for me to have a representative. My representatives did not have much work to do.
Q. I would like to ask you a few questions about the Defendant Hans Loerner. What were his duties in Office A-1?
A. Hans Loerner was chief of an office in Amtsgruppe A. I only know that they primarily dealt with matters pertaining to the General-SS and Allgemeine-SS, and they had certain work in the Reich budget. I don't know any more details about that because I had nothing to do with the office chiefs of the A, B and C groups, and I myself did not have any personal discussions with them because everything was routed through the chief of the office group.
Q. He handled the budgetary matters for the death-head units, did he not?
A. For the entire Waffen SS, but I don't know what he actually did within the framework of his task. I cannot make any statement about the task of the individual chiefs of offices in the individual office groups. I cannot say very much in detail because this was rather far afield from me. They spoke to the chief of the "Amtsgruppe", and then the chief of the "Amtsgruppe would come to see me.
Q. If that is true, what makes you so certain in your testimony on yesterday that George Loerner had nothing to do with the food in the concentration camps if you actually did not have a very intimate knowledge of their work?
A. George Loerner was chief of an office group. I have just stated that the discussions of the chiefs of the offices went over the chiefs of the office groups. Hans Loerner was chief of an office. He would refer all matters to the chief of his "Amtsgruppe", and I would in turn speak to the chief of that "Amtsgruppe".
Q. You know, then do you not, that Hans Loerner handled the budgetary matters for the Ahnenerbe?
A. I don't think that the Ahnenerbe dealt to any considerable extent with budgetary matters. I think the only matter which was carried out here by Hans Loerner is the letter to his personal staff in which he informs that treasury that the expenses for the Ahnenerbe are to be accounted for in the Reich budget. I don't know if he wrote any additional letters, but according to the connection of the entire organization I cannot very well imagine that.
Q. He handled the budgetary matters for the financing of the medical experiments, did he not, through the Ahnenerbe?
A. He had nothing whatsoever to do with it. By informing the treasury of the personal staff where the funds for the Ahnenerbe were to be accredited, he didn't have the least thing to do with the medical experiments.
I am quite certain that he did not know anything about that.
Q. You don't deny it, do you, that the Ahnenerbe carried on medical experiments, and medical experiments were under them?
A. I am not denying that. I know that.
Q. Are you denying that Loerner handled the budgetary matters for the Ahnenerbe?
A. Yes, I deny that insofar that the Ahnenerbe did not have to deal with any budgetary matters. The Ahnenerbe was a registered society which drew its funds from all possible sources, and I did not know any person who worked on these budgetary matters for the Ahnenerbe. As far as I can overlook these matters, Hans Loerner only informed the treasury of the personal staff where the funds, the budgetary funds from the Reich budget for the Scientific Institute were to be accredited and nothing else. That was after Himmler had ordered that the funds for this Institute for Scientific Research were to be paid from the treasury of the Waffen SS. In other words by the State. I don't know any more about these auditing matters and accounting matters.
Q. Will you first turn to Document Book 7 in this connection, to Document NO-266? It is on page 41 of your book. Exhibit 204.
A. Yes, I found it.
Q. It states there that--this is a letter by Loerner is it not?-to the personal staff of Loerner?
A. Yes.
Q. And it states as far as expenses for the institute--referring to the Ahnenerbe--are to be met, they are to be disbursed out of the funds of the Waffen-SS, by the cashier of the personal staff as follows, etc.
Isn't it clear from this letter that he handled at least some of the budgetary affairs of the Ahnenerbe? This is a letter by Loerner.
A. That is exactly what I have just stated. I was thinking of this letter when I discussed this matter before. It is not a part of the budget of the Ahnenerbe, but it is a notification where the money which came from the Reich Budget of the Waffen-SS in the military scientific institute was to be accredited. That is, with the Waffen-SS and not with the Ahnenerbe. That is to say, with the treasury of the personal staff.
Q. Well, then will you turn to another document on this subject in Document Book 9; it is on page 47 of the German, document NO-098.
A. Yes, I have it.
Q. Do you see the point on page three of the original where budgetary matters are talked about. Incidentally, this is a letter from Sievers of the Ahnenerbe to Brandt, on the personal staff of Himmler. And Sievers says that the budget of the institute will be met according to the order of the Reich Leader of the SS, and was already discussed by me in detail with SS-Standartenfuehrer Loerner, out of the funds of the Waffen-SS.
He is talking in this connection about payment for the use of prisoners for medical experiments, is he not?
He says, "We use only ten prisoners........"
A. No, that is exactly the same letter which we have discussed previously and which Sievers is referring to here. It is not so that Loerner from case to case especially turned over every expense to the Ahnenerbe, but once he had received the approval from Himmler to use Reichs funds from the Waffen-SS for the financing office, and by one notifying the treasury of his personal staff, were such funds to be accounted for. With that, the activities of Loerner had been completed. He did not have to say in every case: "This bill has to be paid, has to be paid, etc." But this became completely superfluous.
Q. Excuse me. This letter deals with the payment which the Ahnenerbe has to make for the use of inmates for medical experiments. The Ahnenerbe complains that they are having to pay too much. Now, you can answer the following question Yes or No. Is it clear to you from this document that Loerner participated in the discussions about charges for inmates? Is that clear to you from this document?
A. No.
Q. That is all I ask you: If it is not clear. Then it isn't?
A. No, that cannot be seen either, by the document.
Q. I would like to ask you if you took any part in the follow-up of the matter of charges for inmates for medical experiments. Were you informed about this matter: the charges which were being made to Ahnenerbe for prisoners?
A. I don't know that the Ahnenerbe paid these prisoners. In any case, I can't recall that I was ever approached in a matter of raising funds for the furnishing of these prisoners.
Q. There is no doubt about it, that the inmates themselves were not paid for being experimented upon. And I am just asking you if you know anything about the charges which were made for the use of inmates for medical experiments, charges which were made by Amtsgruppe D of your organization.
You have stated that-
A. I cannot remember that Amtsgruppe D had any expenses for prisoners who were used for medical experiments. I don't know because I did not write out the bill.
Q. I would like to show you a letter that you wrote on the fifth of November, 1942, and see if this doesn't state the exact contrary. This is Document NO-2789, and I should like to assign Exhibit No. 530 for identification. This letter is signed by you, is it not?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. And it is addressed to the chief of Division D. I should like to read part of it. You state:
"I was informed by SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Brandt that the Ahnenerbe has been charged by your office---" (to Interpreters) Do you have a copy?--"with the expenses for the prisoners. The ancestral Heritage Research Organization is carrying out experiments in Natzweiler." Will you follow this on the original to see if the translation is correct?
A. Yes.
Q. "At the order of the Reichsfuehrer-SS under the direction of Professor Hirt the Ancestral Heritage Research Organization is a part of the SS Supreme Command. I assume that these facts are not sufficiently known in your office. Otherwise, it could not have happened that the Ancestral Heritage Research Organization was charged with the expenses for prisoners, especially when these prisoners were used merely for purposes of experiment. Furthermore, I would like to insure that the Ancestral Heritage Research Organization is given the utmost assistance wherever it is active. This applies also to the installation of experimental stations, supply of material, electricity, etc."
Would you like to modify your prior testimony in light of this?
A. No, I adhere to my previous testimony, I said ....
Q. Do you still maintain that you had no knowledge that charges were being made by Amtsgruppe D to the Ahnenerbe for prisoners?
A. Yes, I adhere to this statement because the letter states at the beginning that only through Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Brandt, the Secretary of Himmler, was I informed of this; and I was told that Amtsgruppe D had charged expenses for the use of prisoners for these experiments. I did not know of that. I otherwise would not have needed to write the letter.
Q. I didn't ask you who informed you; I asked you if you had been informed, and you said that you knew nothing about it.
A. I did not know anything about the individual incidents, about prisoners expenses which were charged and those which were not. I did not find out anything about this. It was a matter between the camp and Amtsgruppe D, and I was not contacted about these matters. There must have been thousands of bills. That is the same thing which I have point out yesterday. It is impossible for me to look up each bill here like a little clerk. Just this document is proof of the fact that I did not know anything about it. Otherwise, I would have informed Amtsgruppe D.
Q. The document will speak for itself. But this letter is signed, is it not?
A. Of course.
Q. And it refers to the fact that the Ahnenerbe has been charged too much for the use of inmates for medical experiments, does it not?
A. After this letter, Brandt told me that the Ahnenerbe had to pay money to prisoners of Amtsgruppe D although the Ahnenerbe was part of the personal staff. It was a bill of expenses within the firm; and I pointed out to Amtsgruppe D that this procedure was nonsense. Because--
Q. Well, you must have known something about it. You must have been informed by someone that charges were being made; otherwise, you couldn't have told D to stop charging Ahnenerbe.
A. Well, that is contained at the beginning of the letter. The letter starts: "As SS Sturmbannfuehrer Brandt informs me"-and that is where I found out about it.
Q. And after this letter, did Amtsgruppe D stop charging Ahnenerbe for inmates?
A. I suppose so.
Q. That's what you recommended in this letter?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. Then after you interfered in the procedure, didn't the doctors who it cost the doctors who experimented on human beings less for their human subjects than it would have cost them for a cat? There was some charge made for a cat for experimentation, but after you got through with the procedure, no charge at all was made, is that correct?
A. The question of expenses did not play a major part in comparison with cats. I must refute it. It does not correspond with my concept. Payments by him to the agencies of the SS was sheer nonsense. I tried to stop it. That was the whole letter. The Treasury of the Personnel Staff spent the money and another treasury at Oranienburg received the money. That was the purpose of this letter.
Q. So that it didn't cost Ahnenerbe anything at all for human subjects?
A. After that I answered that Ahnenerbe was not to make any additional payments for the use of prisoners, because that was part of the Reichsfuehrung-SS.
Q. You don't still maintain, do you, that you knew nothing about the fact that Ahnenerbe was using inmates --prisoners -- and that charges prior to your letter-
A. I have never denied that. I never denied that I had no knowledge of it.
Q. The record will speak on that subject. Hans Loerner also participated, did he not, in the negotiations concerning the so-called wages for inmate labor of all of the SS industries?
A. I don't think so. The wage discussions for the prisoners----
Q. Yes, you remember that from the documents, don't you, that Hans Loerner participated in the discussions on charges for inmate labor to the SS industries?
A. I don't think that Hans Loerner played any part in that. It wasn't even in his field of work. I don't think so.
Q. Will you turn to Document Book No. 4, to page 46 in your book. This is Exhibit 86, Document NO-517, on page 34 of the English Book.
A. In Document ---- what page of the German?
Q. On page 46, I believe of the German.
A. That is Document NO-242.
Q. You see NO-517 at about that location?
A. Just a moment please.
Q. Book 4, yes, page 46 in Book 4. Is that Hans Loerner that is referred to in the last paragraph of the letter?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. This is a memorandum by Baier, signed Chief W, and it concerns camp regulations for prisoners and it states that you have asked that Baier draw up certain regulations and those regulations concern the amount to be fixed as pay for prisoners and so forth. The proportion of pay which goes to the Reich, premiums, and other matters concerning payment for prisoners. The last paragraph says that Loerner and Salpeter have to be consulted. You gave those instructions, didn't you?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Do you still maintain that Hans Loerner had nothing to do with the fixing of inmate wages -- so called?
A. I see now that in this work, because he was also the expert for the salary questions of the employees and workers and he was to participate in this.
If any collaboration took place, I do not know, this is an exception.
Q. You know now, don't you from looking at the document? It says----
A. Yes, yes, yes.
MR. ROBBINS: Would this be a convenient time for the Tribunal to recess?
THE PRESIDENT: As you say.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess for 1t minutes.
( A recess was taken. )
Q. When do you recall when you first met Hans Loerner?
A. I can not recollect it. I don't know when he joined the WVHA.It might have been in 1940, but I knew his name before that, because he was in charge of some administrative office, but I am not sure of the year.
Q. I am very sorry. Would you repeat that?
A. I don't recollect the year when I met him personally. At the same time I believe he was in some administrative office of the Reich. I knew him by name, but when I met him for the first time I don't recollect.
Q. Do you remember when he first joined your administrative organization?
A. It might have been before the war, but I am not quite sure.
Q. Do you recall what his first position was. At that time. The organization was the Main Office Budget and Construction, was it not? I suppose he held the position then of Main Office Administration and Economy?
A. I don't know, because he did not come to see me personally at the time. He must have been in charge of Main Department of the Office, I am not sure. He was not immediately under me. I assume he was under Office Chief, but I don't recall what position he had at the time.
Q. Do you know whether or not he joined the SS voluntarily? Do you know when that occurred?
A. If he joined it before the war, it must have been voluntarily.
Q. Well, we are still discussing Amtsgruppe-A. I would like to ask you if you recall the time when an administrative unit was established in Division D. That is, the administration was taken out of A and placed in D, as far as certain items of concentration camp administrations were concerned. Do you know when that occurred?
A. Do you mean the taking out of the Main Department 1-5 from Office Group-A?
Q. No, we discussed that yesterday. I am referring now to the establishment of an administrative unit in Division D -- Office Group D, wasn't that?
A. Yes, there was an administrative unit within Office Group D, that existed from the beginning. Even at the time when Office Group D, had not been made part of WVHA, that was the Central Office for the Administration of camps.
Q. You don't recall on the 3rd -- around the 3rd of June, as a matter of fact, it was the 1 June 1943, a separate administrative unit without a finance office was set up in Division D, and was named, "SS Main Office for Economy and Administration Division D Administration."
A. I don't understand what you mean?
Q. You don't recall that that happened, is that right? Or you don't understand that question?
A. The question is so unclear, and that the description is so confused, I don't know what is being asked about it.
Q. I am reading from a document that unfortunately I don't have the original here so I can not give it to you. I am just questioning you generally about it, and you state, do you , that you don't recall that an administrative unit was established in 1943 in Amtsgruppe D.?
A. You asked me whether in 1943 an administrative unit was established in Office Group D. I can not understand that because the administrative office there always existed. I don't know what you mean by administrative unit within Office Group-D? In Office Group D, or in the inspectorate of the concentration camps unit, there always was an administrative office that was further defined in 1943 that always existed.
Q. Did the administrative office report to Office Groups A-2, A-4 and A-5 on certain phases ofits activities?