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?
A: I would like to say it very briefly. Fanslau, according to his age, was the youngest chief of office in Amtsgruppe A. Loerner, Hans Loerner of Group A-1, Eckert of A-II, Vogt, of A-IV, all these people were people who were about ten years older than Fanslau. Therefore, it can be understood that all these persons who were in their office all these years worked there and it is known to me that all these chiefs of amtsgruppes had to report directly to Pohl. I believe that was the way it was also when Fanslau became office chief.
Q: Who made Fanslau your deputy? Pohl did that, didn't he?
A: I did not quite understand that question.
Q: Who made Fanslau your Deputy Chief in Amtsgruppe A?
A: Pohl.
Q: You still haven't answered my question. Did or did not Fanslau act as Chief of A during the period from September 1943 to May 1944. He was Acting Chief of A, was he not?
A: No.
Q: What does it mean to be a deputy of an Amtsgruppe. Doesn't it mean that when the Chief is away, as you were away, that he acts in the Chief's place? There were several months there that you were away and the office was vacant, You told us Fanslau was Deputy chief of the Office. Can you give us any conceivable explanation why it was that he wasn't acting as Chief?
A: Because he was not in a position, that is, technically and factually, to do so. Fanslau was simply a specialist on personnel questions.
Q: How was it he was able to take over the entire office a few months later?
A: I believe the reason was that he was a kind of honour and that actually and officially nothing changed. In the meantime he probably got used to all those things -- got used to the whole job.
Q: During that period, then, there is no doubt about it that Fanslau was Deputy Chief of Amtsgruppe A, from September 1943; to May 1944.
A: He had not been nominated as such officially.
Q: He was Deputy Chief, wasn't he?
A: Of Amtsgruppe A? Yes, yes, he was that already at my time.
Q: And as far as orders were concerned, he was the superior in the Amtsgruppe -- he was responsible to Pohl for the Amtsgruppe?
A: No, I don't think so. I believe that the individual Amtsgruppe chiefs were directly responsible to Pohl during that period of time.
Q: Are you sure about that, or is that just a guess?
A: I am of the opinion, due to the knowledge I have about it, namely that Fanslau knew nothing about the things of A-1, A-II, and A-IV, or, shall I say he did not know enough to report to Pohl about those things. In other words, he would have had to take along the Chief of the Amt. to the conference, and, according to my opinion, that would have been rather ridiculous.
Q: That certainly is not an answer to my question, but let's go to another matter. You told us the other day about Amt. A-IV, or, rather, Amt. 5-IV. Can you tell us today just what the function of that office was?
A: That there was an Amt. A5-IV, I read in the documents here, I didn't know at all before, nor was I interested in it, because how this Amt. A5-IV was subdivided and furthermore the fact that Glueck's Ajutant was a man who worked on personnel questions, and that he used the file note A5-IV, I didn't know.
Q: Will you repeat that? I am sorry I didn't get it.
A: The personnel question expert with Gluecks at the same time was Gluecks' Adjutant and that expert in personnel matters dealt with both personnel matters for the concentration camp commandants and also with personnel questions for the administrative officers and apparently, as I have to understand from this document here, in his capacity as Chief of Personnel Questions of the Administrative Officers, he worked with the File Note A5-IV.
Q: It was more than a file note. It was an office. It was an office under you and Fanslau and in this chart, which was the official chart of the WVHA, I believe it is NO-111 -- it is in Document Book No. II and under you as Chief of Amtsgruppe A and under Fanslau, as Chief of Office A-5, it is a different subdivision; it is A5-I, which is Replacements, Listings, and Dismissals that's correct, isn't it?
A: Yes, I read it.
Q: A5-II, which is Promotions, Assignments and Transfers -
A: Yes.
MR. ROBBINS: I should like to point out to the court that unfortunately all of this information is not contained in the chart that is attached to the basic information brief, and unfortunately too the translation of this material is not included in the English translation of Document NO-111. I will supply the court with a complete translation of this document. This is the only omission which exists in the translation of the document. Then there is A5-III, which is Training and Schools. That was under Fanslau, wasn't it? Then there is A5-IV, which is shown on the chart as being under Fanslau and it is called Concentration Camps Replacements, Dismissals, Promotions, Detached Service, Transfer and Training, and then in parentheses, "Attached to Amtsgruppe D." This was under Fanslau's supervision, wasn't it?
A: Mr. Prosecutor, that particular chart was changed by Fanslau here in jail and that by his interrogator.
Q: Witness, it may have been changed by Fanslau in jail, but this is a captured document. This is an official document that was used by the WVHA. I should think that Fanslau -- I should think that Fanslau would like to change it, but this remains as part of the record. This office was under Fanslau. That is shown by the official chart of the WVHA and it was under you. You don't deny that, do you?
A: Mr. Prosecutor, when this organizational order, this particular one that is before the Tribunal now, was discussed by the interrogator and Fanslau in order to confirm everything that is contained in that original
Q: Don't tell us what Fanslau told the interrogator. Just tell us what you know about A5-IV, which was under your competence.
A: I never did know that A5-IV operated with our Main Office, not my Main Office. I did not know the expert in those matters. I didn't know him personally, that is, I didn't know who it was nor did I know how Fanslau had subdivided that in his own Amt. You have the original before your now. Such an organizational chart is planned and then only it is found whether it can be maintained. It can be seen if it can be kept up and complied with and that depends on what the necessity requires. You think there was no change in this plan later on, just exactly as Fanslau told his interrogator and it was accepted; according to my opinion, the main office A5-IV was stationed at Oranienburg.
Q: Escuse me, the reason I think there wasn't a change in this organizational plan is based in part on your testimony of a day or two ago. If necessary, I can put my finger on it, and you said that the administrative official -- you said this in answer to Judge Phillips' question -- the administrative official in the concentration camp was appointed by the Personnel Office of the WVHA and that is under Fanslau.
A: He was not appointed. One person -
Q: Well, he was named then. He was designated then.
A: Yes, that is correct.
Q: And that was carried out under A5-IV.
A: May I repeat the concentration camp commandants were not administrative experts. Their files generally speaking -
Q: Excuse me. You have given us quite sufficient detail about what the administrative official does and I don't think it is necessary to go into that. I would like to show you another document here which deals with the description of A5-IV and get your explanation of that question, Document 1923 - NO -- This document, I might say, has already been distributed for insertion in the document book, but it has not been marked for identification. I have forgotten what the last exhibit was -
THE PRESIDENT: 551. This is 552.
Q This is a leter from Gluecks. Now, Doctor, this has already been distributed for inclusion in the documents books. I'm sure you have a copy of it somewhere. This is a letter from Gluecks of Amtsgruppe D, and it is to the camp commanders of all the concentration camps and also to Amtsgruppe D and the residential camp Bergen-Belsen.
Under sub-paragraph E Gluecks orders that certain reports be made by the concentration camp commandant to Office A-V-IV. Other reports are to be made by the commanders of the concentration camps to D-I, D-111, D-IV, and so forth.
Do you know whether or not these reports were actually sent to A-V-VI?
A Mr. Prosecutor, this document is a striking proof of the fact that Amt-AV-IV had nothing to do with the personnel office because Amtsgruppe A-V should have participated or at least been mentioned in this document if Amt V-IV had been part of IV. It is absolutely impossible that Gluecks writes an order here and give various orders to Amt V-IV, without then notifying the Chief of Amt V as you say. That is something that is absolutely impossible in military circles. I should like to refer to letter E, in particular now. Under E it says,: "Monthly strenght report for participants in SS Army Office." What did Office A-V ever have to do with post offices?
Q General, I am asking the questions and you are giving the answers. Suppose you tell us what A-V had to do with these matters.
A Nothing at all, Mr. Prosecutor. Certainly nothing at all. Mr. Prosecutor, may I refer to number 3 under E, with reference to exchange of men fit for active service. That's purely a military matter which has nothing to do with administration. "Monthly report on racial German volunteers from Southest Europe"--that is a mater also which has nothing to do with the administration.
Q This falls very logically into the other subject offices. A-V-I deals with replacements and dismissal; A-V-II with promotions, assignments, and transfers, and A-V-III with training and schools.
They dealt with military matters. Why is it so illogical that A-V-IV would deal with military matters?
A Yes, Mr. Prosecutor, it is illogical. The reason is that A-V-IV was at the same time Gluecks adjutant, and whatever is said here in this report are questions of adjutant's nature. They are adjutant's tasks but not personnel tasks. I can see from this document that the man also signed with Amt A-V-IV in adjutant's questions, which, of course, is nonsense. For instance, 3 sets forth matters about wounded, or V would have to do with free places for wounded men. It is nothing but purely adjutant's tasks.
Q I don't think there's any point in arguing the matter further with you. Undoubtedly the office had a good deal to do with Amtsgruppe D because on the chart it says that certain functions are attached to Amtsgruppe D. I think the documents, however, will speak for themselves. Jill you tell us approximately how many people were under Fanslau's supervision while he was Chief of amtsgruppe A?
AAt what date, Mr. Prosecutor?
Q When he became Chief in May 1944.
A I couldn't tell you that. I don't know that.
Q Well, how many were under your supervision when you left in September 1943?
A You mean the entire Amtsgruppe or A-V?
Q No, the entire Amtsgruppe.
AAltogether with auxiliary forces, there must have been 150 people.
Q How many were under Vogt's supervision at the height of his carrier in the WVHA ?
A Mr. Prosecutor, it very difficult for me to tell you that today.
Q Just give us a rough estimate. I don't want to know exactly.
A Well, an approximate estimate would be that Vogt when I left in July 1943 had approximately and totally thirty to thirty-five employees under his supervision, that is, including the ladies.
Q Is that the most he ever had under his supervision? It was larger than that, wasn't it?
A Yes, that's correct.
Q What was the largest number of employees under his supervision?
A I shall again tell you that it's nothing but an approximate number. His highest number must have been approximately twenty officers, fifteen NC)'s and fifteen to twenty civilian employees.
Q Do you mean that he was just a little bookkeeper?
A I never did say that.
Q Fanslau, who became Office Chief after you, must have had 150 people under him. He wasn't just a little bookkeeper, was he?
A I never did imply that, Mr. Prosecutor. He was Major General.
Q Hans Loerner, who became Deputy Chief of the entire Amtsgruppe wasn't just a little bookkeeper, was he?
A Loerner seen from a certain point of view and from the capacities involved in his work, was the smallest of them all. According to my opinion in 1944 he had only a personnel strenght of four.
Q You would classify him as a little book keeper?
A Bookkeeper is not the correct expression. Anyway he didn't have any books.
Q Weel, you told us your first day on the stand that if we had Rudolf Hess and Lolling , Gluecks, Eicke here, then the little bookkeepers of Amtsgruppe A wouldn't be in the dock today. I'm just trying to find out whom you were talking about. You don't consider yourself as a little bookkeeper, do you, General?
A Mr. Prosecutor, I used your own words at the time. I only wanted to point out that I had used the terms used in the indictment. The indictment itself speaks of bookkeepers, and that is the reason why I used that expression. I should not like to degrade myself down to degrade myself down to the rank of a bookkeeper from a general.
I am not deprecating the profession of a bookkeeper, of course.
Q I wanted to make sure that we didn't have any little bookkeepers in the dock. Now, will you tell us how often the camp administrative officer balanced hos books?
A That? Balanced the books?
Q Yes. Was that quaterly, twice a year, annually?
A Books were balanced every three months and sent to Berlin. They stayed in Berlin until they were checked because only a certain percentage was audited during the war. In Germany we called that spot checks.
Q In other words, the balance sheets of the administrative officer were sent to Berlin?
Q Yes, the budget slips were sent to Berlin, that's correct.
Q And these balance sheets-
A Excuse me, Mr. Prosecutor. I should like to say that I am only telling you all this from my own knowledge up to July 1943; that after that I do not know anything about it.
Q Then in Berlin the balance sheets were checked by A-IV, were they not?
A Yes, spot checks.
Q Can you tell us whether A-IV had anything to do with checking the income from the use of concentrationcamp inmates, so-called wages? We discussed this subject the other day, but I don't believe I got an answer to that question.
A Yes, that's right. We were interrupted, I mentioned before that those amounts which were paid by the industry to the concentrationcamps as so-called wages were taken in by the Reich. In other words , they became an income to the Reich. Those incomes were con tained in the cash books of the concentration camps just exactly as the expenses were. Due to the fact that every three months all these balance sheets were sent to Berlin, there was a possibility, of course, of see ing on the basis of the balance how much money had become an income for the Reich.
Q One last question which I have omitted to ask you. You were Pohl's deputy, were you not, as treasurer of the NSDAP?
A You mean in the Party?
Q Yes.
A Yes, MR. ROBBINS: I have no further questions.DR. RAUSCHEN BACH ( for the defendant August Frank): Mr. President, I have no questions for the redirect examination.EXAMINATION BY DR. VON STAKEBERG (for the defendant Fanslau):Q Witness, this chart, which is Document NO-111 , did you know it from before?
A May I see it for just one moment, please? Yes, I know that chart, yes.
Q When did you see it for the first time?
A When it was printed on the 3rd of March 1942.
Q Did you participate in the drafting of this chart?
A At least I did for Amtsgruppe A.
Q How was it then that this term, this special term, A-V-IV, was used?
A I have already told the prosecution that I had no knowledge about that, that I could't give any further information because I no longer recall how this sub-department A-V-IV was established. I believe that Fanslau himself is the man that could give you the best possible answer.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Do you know anything about the Personnel Office with the former Inspectorate of the concentration camps?
A I only know what I already told, namely, that the personnel question expert was at the same time an adjutant.
Q I mean, about the former existence of the personnel office. That is, did the personnel office already exist before the incorporation?
A Yes, of course. The Inspectorate brought that along with it. It was not perfected.
Q You are speaking of what particular strength of the personnel office?
A With the strength of the personnel office, I don't know that it had the same personnel strength. However, Haarbaum was there as an adjutant.
Q At the time Haarbaum was inspector of that, was he?
A I only knew Haarbaum as Gluecks' adjutant.
Q I see. Would you again tell us what it shows here as to A-V-IV?
A The abbreviation is "K.A." that is releases, promotions, transmissions, assignments, training, assigned to Amtsgruppe-D.
Q It starts with "KL" that is, that refers to administrative officers to concentration camp service, or men in concentration camps?
A Well, in my opinion that only applies to administrative officers. I don't know for sure how the whole thing was interpolated in here. It is very difficult for me to give all this detail, because it was immaterial to me at the time, and I had other worries but to worry about those things here.
Q Was anything discussed as between the administrative career and the concentration camp career? Was there a difference?
A You can not discuss the difference. There was nothing in common. They had nothing in common. The concentration camp commandant Court No. II, Case No. 4.came from the sphere of army administration, namely, the army and front line duty, therefore, they did not have anything to do with administration, and they were not trained in administration, and, if they had been released or changed to start with a concentration camp as commandant, they did not go back to administration, but they were transferred to any other office where they could be useful, but never were they transferred to the administration, because they did not have any administrative training.