Q Did the members of the concentration camp service also wear a different uniform?
A The uniform was the same. However, the color of the patches was brown, the lape patch. I'll have to add, those were the shoulder patches, and the administrative officers wore blue ones.
Q Haarbaum as Office Chief of Personnel Office of AmtsgruppeD, did he at any time report to you, that is actually on personnel questions?
A As I have already stated before, I did not know that he worked on these personnel questions. I only know him as Gluecks' adjutant.
Q In other words, you as Chief Officer of Amtsgruppe-A never had any connection whatsoever with this personnel office of Amtsgruppe-D?
A No, it would have been unusual for me to do so, that is, if several department chiefs of Amts would come to report to me, it would be unusual.
Q Did you know that Haarbaum had to report to the defendant Fanslau?
A I am not in a position to tell you anything about that.
Q When Fanslau discussed personnel questions, did you at any time discuss the questions about the duties in the concentration camps?
A Insofar as when an administrative officer of a concentra Court No. II, Case No. 4.tion camp was transferred to the front line duty, then it was possible that Fanslau asked me, "Do you think this man is capable of taking care of administrative front line duty questions?"
Q However, that deals with administrative officers in concentration camps. I am referring to concentration camp duty, the men who wore those brown patches?
A Well, I did not know these people myself.
Q In other words, Fanslau at no time made reports to you about these questions and these peoples?
A No, not about these questions nor about these people.
Q The order of 4 July 1944 which was just mentioned by the Prosecution in this distribution list in spite of the fact it was sent from the Chief of WVHA, it contains amongst other things officers of SS-WVHA, Amtsgruppe A-IV, and SS-WVHA Amts-A-1. Now was it usual that the Amts were issued directives by the Chief's Office, or did it go through the Amtsgruppe Chief?
A You are quite right to mention that point. It was not usual, no. It would have to be addressed formally to the Chief of the Amtsgruppe, and that was A-I, and to A-IV. The fact that it was sent to them is further proof that the offices of chief amtsgruppes was vacant.
Q Or at least practically vacant?
A Yes, at least practically vacant.
Q And you can tell me that from your own knowledge of the conditions of WVHA?
A Yes. I already mentioned that to the Prosecution.
Q I have one more question as to the deputyship of Fanslau. I have already asked the question during my first interrogation. However, I would like to refer to this question again. What were the tasks that the defendant Fanslau had as your deputy. Did he have actual tasks; was he actually a superior of the other Amts-chiefs?
A I believe that I would bore this Tribunal if I were to Court No. II, Case No. 4.repeat that the deputies had to do in WVHA.
They were not deputies in the sense it is used with various offices, namely, that every chief had his deputy, and that their deputies had nothing else to do but actually to represent their chief. That never applied to us, and in our own office we had so much work to do that it was actually impossible. It would have been impossible. For instance, in my own case, I would have to participate in all the conferences with Pohl. In other words, Gluecks would want to see Pohl, and Pohl would say, Frank, come on with me, Gluecks is here. Or a commandant would come, Kammler, he would be here, and, he would call me up and say, come along, Kammler is here, and then, of course, it would not be possible to do any work at all. That was the reason why being a deputy in Germany, it was never carried out in that sense, and was never carried out in that manner. It had nothing to do with representation of deputyship. We deputized certain deputy actions when the chief was not there, but there was no factual representations.
Q I believe you have explained it quite clearly, and I would like the question brought to a conclusion, that a deputy does not have to have the factual knowledge of everything that occurred in an Amtsgruppe?
A No.
DR. STAKELBERG: Thank you. No further questions.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Let me see that chart, will you please?
Q The Court understands you to testify to the fact that in the making up of this chart in 1942 that you gave the information as Chief of A-I for the things that are contained under Amtsgruppe-A in this chart, is that correct?
A May it please Your Honor, All these individual Amtschiefs I ordered them to give me a description of how they imagine their organization for their group, and I compiled all their suggestions, and I made that main suggestion to Pohl, but --
Q I understand you to say you participated in the making of Court No. II, Case No. 4.this chart as Chief of Amtsgruppe-A?A That is correct, Your Honor.
However, not as to the details, I did not go into detail. I could not do that.
Q Well, did you then ask Fanslau to give you or to break down his office, and to give you the data on that when you were asking the various chiefs for the information about that particular office, or the particular office, under Amtsgruppe-A?
A Yes, indeed, that was the way it was.
Q Then did Fanslau give you the various branches of his offices, to-wit, Amts-A-V, and subdivided it into A-V-1, II, III and IV, as you have it in the chart here?
A That is the way; probably it was, Your Honor.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Allright, that is all.
DR. STAKELBERG: Your Honor, I have just one more question in this connection.
BY DR. STAKEIBERG:
Q Witness, how many organizational charts were actually set up by WVHA at the staging of the WVHA?
A The organizational chart was rejected several times and renewed.
Q Was such an organizational chart set up in January or February?
A In January, no. No, I am sure, because -
Q Was it February?
A Yes, in February, yes.
Q Are you quite sure that those statements which you just made, namely, the statements about the organizational chart to your Amts-chief, referred to that particular chart?
A I don't quite understand your question.
Q What I want to find out is, did you participate in the setup of the chart, do you know, that I have there?
A I believe, yes. I believe I have to answer that question Court No. II, Case No. 4.with a yes, because as the Judge just asked me, I stated that I myself could not supply all the necessary material to set up an organizational chart about the Amtsgruppen, because I did not know of my own knowledge, therefore, I had to get all these documents from the Amts-chiefs, and only as Judge Phillips has just stated, that I must have received the documents of Amts-A-V and compiled them in a common Amtsgruppe suggestion.
Q But your formulation shows that you knew nothing about it, but will you state now you must have received it, and I am asking you, are you sure here, or are you just assuming that?
A How am I to recollect that today after six years. That is all I wanted to know.
Q That is all I wanted to know, that is nothing but an assumption on your part. You cannot say that you know that, or say it, from your own knowledge? You assume that, you personally assume that the Amts-chiefs put that before you?
A Yes, because they could not do it any other way, basing everything else on what I can recall.
Q And the answer which you gave me that you participated in that chart is nothing but an assumption on your part? You can no longer recall that exactly, can you?
A I am sure that I participated in that chart. I can state that under oath.
DR. STAKELBERG: Your Honor, I can say nothing further about it, but I am surprised because I have other evidence that he did not participate in that, and I shall introduce it.
BY DR. BELZER (Counsel for defendant Karl Sommer):
Q. Witness, as I was told, you testified yesterday afternoon in the cross examination in connection with the wages for the inmates that the Labor Assignment Leader for the concentration camps was subordinate to Amt D-II. Do you maintain that statement?
A That was an assumption on my part because I can not figure it out in any other way. I read here on the chart that D-II was in charge of labor allocation.
A You assume then that the individual offices of Amtsgruppe D in the concentration camps had a sub-department, a department which was under their charge? .
A No, I do not assume that.
Q How, then, can you say that an organization, or rather, a member of an organization, or rather, a member of a concentration camp was subordinated to Amt D-II?
A Because I could not figure it out in any other way. If the labor assignment leader did not receive his orders from a bakery or from a labor allocation man, and the labor allocation man is to receive his orders from some place, and everyone has a superior, it could not be anybody else but the commander.
Q Let me ask you this way: Where do you believe that the orders of Amt D-II were sent - to the concentration camp commandants or to the labor allocation leader?
A I do not know that.
Q Mr. Robbins asked you before with reference to various defendants, "Are they small bookkeepers?" Unfortunately, Mr. Robbins ceased examining you on that question before mentioning the defendant Sommer. Mr. Robbins quit examining you on that point by stating, "You do not wish to say, in other words, that there are no small bookkeepers in the dock?" Are you sure that you really want to maintain that statement with reference to the defendant Sommer?
A I was not asked about that.
Q But I am asking you.
A I stated before that I saw Sommer here in this Tribunal for the first time. How am I to tell what kind of work he did or what his task was? I met Sommer here. I believe that his rank, a captain, shows that there must have been a difference between the tasks of a general and the tasks of a captain, and that a captain does not have or could not bear the same responsibility as a general or a colonel could, and I believe that applies to all the armies of the world.
Q Earlier this morning you told us that you asked the defendant Sommer in this Tribunal where Amtsgruppe D, or Amt D-II received the watches. Did you not also ask the defendant Sommer what his duties were in Amt D-II?
A No, I was interested simply in the watches. I was not interested in the rest.
DR. BELZER: Thank you, no further questions.
BY DR. HEIM (Counsel for defendant Hohberg):
Q Witness, I have only one question to put to you. From one of your statements yesterday it can be understood that you looked upon the defendant Baier as the successor to Hohberg and that Hohberg in 1943 resigned from his position in the DWB concern. Can you explain please what makes you think that Baier took over Dr. Hohberg's activities?
A I never asserted that. That might have been a deduction on my part. Hohberg, to my knowledge, was a free economic arbiter and not even a member of the SS, while Baier was an SS Oberfuehrer. Therefore, I can not judge whether Baier was Hohberg's successor or not, and with reference to Hohberg's tasks.
I do not have the possibility of doing so.
Q Can you tell me if there was a difference, particularly in the commercial law?
A I am afraid that I am not a business man. I can not tell you about that.
DR. HEIM: Thank you; no further questions.
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q I have only one question, witness. You told us on direct examination that this chart correctly represented the organization of the WVHA, referring to NO 111, and you also heard Pohl give the same testimony. Do you wish to stick to that testimony?
A I have no doubt that was the original chart which was set up by us in 1942.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: I am at the end of the evidence for the defendant August Frank. I shall introduce a document book later on if the translation is finished. I have renounced the witness Hans Stein, I believe -or rather -- Yes, I renounced the witness Hans Stein, who was granted to me. However, I understand that counsel for defendant Fanslau, to whom the witness was also granted, would like to interrogate this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we'll take our noon recess now and start with the new witness at 1:45.
(Witness excused.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess until 0145.
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1350 hours, 10 June 1947)
THE MARSHAL: Take your seats, please.
The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. Von STAKELBERG (For Defendant Fanslau) Your Honor, according to the arrangement made between defense counsel, it would now be the turn of the Defendant Fanslau. Before opening my case here I would like to recall a request made by me to the Tribunal, which I made in my opening statement. The request was, as far as Counts 1, to 3 are concerned, to drop proceedings against Fanslau because the Prosecution has been unable to provide sufficient evidence for his participation in the alleged conspiracy in war crimes and crimes against humanity, in the view of the defense counsel that is. The Tribunal has not yet ruled on that request, and I would therefore like to ask whether the Tribunal wishes to make a ruling before I open my defense?
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is of the opinion that the proof offered by the Prosecution has made a prima facie case involving a question of fact, and the motion to enter a judgment of not guilty -
THE INTERPRETER: I am afraid, your Honor, the interpreter did not quite follow. I am so sorry.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is of the opinion that the proof offered by the Prosecution has made a prima facie case involving a question of fact, and the defendant's motion, therefore, for a judgment of not guilty at this time will be denied.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Mr. President, in that case I would like to call the witness Stein in order to open the defense of Fanslau. The witness is outside. Since the witness Stein has been called on behalf of the Defendant Frank, I did not have the opportunity to announce this witness, but I do not anticipate any objections on the part of the Prosecution because I did not observe the twenty-four hour rule.
MR. ROBBINS: I have no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will bring to the courtroom Hans Stein, a witness for the Defendant Fanslau.
JOHANN STEIN, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE PHILLIPS: You will please raise your right hand and repeat after me.
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath).
JUDGE PHILLIPS: You may be seated.
BY DR. VON STAKELBERG (Counsel for the defendant Fanslau):
Q. Witness, will you please give us your name and the date of your birth?
A. My name is Johann Stein. I was born on 20 August, 1911, in Austria.
Q. Witness, you were employed in the WVHA, were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you join the WVHA?
A. I joined it when it was organized - on the first of April 1942.
Q. What were your tasks which you were given at the time?
A. I was a member of the Department A-V-2. We worked on personnel data of officers and officials of the Waffen SS.
Q. When your department was taken over, did you have a political order of any sort?
A. No.
Q. Can you describe your tasks somewhat more clearly? What were your tasks?
A. In my department we worked on assignments for the administrative officials including their personal files and data suggestions for promotions were made for the Personnel Main Office.
Q. And that department was called, as you said before, A-V-2?
A. Yes, A-V-2.
Q. When you were transferred to the WVHA, what did you think the WVHA was? Did you regard it as a political agency or as a department of state with purposes on behalf of the state?
A. My impression was that the WVHA was the highest administrative agency of the Waffen SS with ministerial authority. It was well known to me that Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, its chief, worked on special tasks on behalf of the Reichsfuehrer SS in the economic sphere.
Q. Your tasks in the department A-5-2 were confined, on the other hand you said, to locking after the Waffen -SS?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you regard as the Waffen-SS as at that time. Were they a military unit or a political group?
A. I regarded the Waffen-SS as a purely military organization. I never saw any political task connected with it.
Q. What other tasks existed apart from A-5-2?
A. There was A-5-1, which worked on the civilian employees of Office Groups A, B and C, without D and W. Department A-5-3 worked all questions of the coming generation of learners their selection and their training.
Q. Who worked in your department, how many people did you have in yours.
A. In my department there was ore more officer, apart from myself; four or five lower officers, and five civilian employees.
Q. What about A-5-1 and A-5-3?
A. I can only tell you how many officials and leaders we had there, in A-5-1 there were two leaders and in A-5-3 there were in the end three leaders.
JUDGE PHILLIPS Witness, was there not an A-5-4 in this organization?
A. No.
BY DR. VON STAKELBERG:
Q. To add something to this question; there is an organizational chart in this courtroom submitted by the Prosecution, And this plan Contains a Department A-5-4. In the bottom corner, on the left.
A. Yes, that is quite right, but it says here that A-5-4 is attached to Office Group D.
Q. Attached, yes. The word "attached" - does it actually say attached?"
A. Yes, it says "attached to."
Q. Does that term "attached" mean that you were merely separated from the office A-5 locally? Or does it mean that that department was part of Office Group D.
A. It means that this department was purely a part of Office Group D, and was immediately subordinated to the office chief of Office Group D. I could explain that further because this organizational chart, when it was first published, I asked my chief, Brigadefuehrer Fanslau what it meant. And he told me that he had not helped to draw up this chart, whereas the main office chief wished that all personnel matters should be given that file note. In other words, the introduction of that file note had a significance only from the point of view of keeping the files. We emphasized particularly that nothing would be changed in the actual organization. That department would continue to be subordinate to Gruppenfuehrer Gluecks in Office Group D.
Q. You said "continue to remain subordinate." Does that mean that that department existed before the inspectorate was incorporated as Office Group D?
A. Yes; it was the personnel agency of the former inspectorate of concentration camps.
Q. If I understand you correctly, by the incorporation one change occurred which was as you said the file note was changed?
A. Yes, that was the only change.
Q. Then that file note was taken over. Does that lead to a dependence of the personnel office in Office Group D to A- Five was concerned?
A. No, in no way at all.
A. Were there any connections between Office A-5 and the personnel office, with Amtsgruppe D?
A. No.
Q. Who was in charge of that office group D.
A. The man in charge was Sturmbannfuehrer Harbaum, who was also Gluecks' adjutant.
Q. Do you know whether Harbaum and Fanslau ever saw each other?
Did Harbaum ever report about his business to Fanslau?
A. No. What I know is that Harbaum or Gluecks had only conversations about replacements in personnel, either with agencies of the army, the personnel main office, the SS main office. He would lead these negotiations directly with the agency without consulting or informing Fanslau in any sense. That would not have been possible if even the slightest contact had existed because all these conversations held by the administrative personnel would be carried out by Fanslau and the agencies concerned.
Q. Mr. Fanslau?
A. Yes, as far as administrative personnel were concerned.
Q. And also what about concentration camp service. You said it was Office Group D.
A. Yes, it was only Office Group D.
Q. Was the independence of A-5-4 expressed in any other factors? Can you give us a survey in how far the independence of that office was expressed?
A. Yes; the personnel office controlled all administrative officers with the troops. They kept very precise files, of the Waffen SS, whereas the personal files of the members of Office Group D were not kept by the personnel office, probably the Office Group D, itself.
Q. You mean "personnel office?" What do you mean, personnel office?
A. By thAt I mean Office A-5.
Q. I want to make that quite clear. We want to speak about the personnel office; we wish to refer to the personnel office as A-5, and we must not confuse the two terns, must we?
A. No.
Q. Now, you said of the entire WVHA and of all agencies of the Waffen-SS, all personal files were kept by Office A-5, not as far as Office Group D was concerned.
A. I wish to make that even clearer. All administrative offices of the Waffen SS, including those fighting at the front -- all agencies all other units of the Waffen SS-the files were kept by the Office A-5. That is correct. Whereas the personnel files of members of the concentration camps were not kept by the personnel office, probably by Office Group D.
At any rate, not by Office A-5. Another example: Strength reports which reported the exact strength of the various offices, Waffen-SS, members, including civilian employees never contained the strength of the personnel of office Group D. That , I think, are the most essential points.
Q. And all personal conversations were made between Gluecks and Pohl themselves, and did not go to Fanslau. Now, this morning a document was submitted by Chief of Amtsgrupps D, and that document contains, on page 3, a paragraph for lain Department A-5-4. Will you please look at the document and tell us whether that confirms your opinion?
THE PRESIDENT: Are you referring -
DR. VON STAKELBERG: I am referring to a Document this morning. Will you please give it number -
WITNESS: Five hundred fifty-two.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: It is Exhibit 552 for identification.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: What did you ask the witness, please?
DR. VON STAKELBERG: I asked the witness to look at paragraph e and to examine whether what it contained there confirms what he has told us so far.
A Yes, this is a purely internal matter of Office Group D.
Q Perhaps you will look at the various points and explain to us what does point No. 1 say?
A Monthly strength report for participants in SS Army Post Offices.
Q Were they to be sent to the Main Department A V 4, or what happened?
A No, this is a general date when reports must be submitted for such units and the Main Department A V 4 is responsible for the various points mentioned in detail. That means that Department A V 4 was responsible within Office Group D for the monthly strength reports for participants in SS Army Post Offices within the framework subordinated to Office Group D as is shown by the distribution list.
Q Does this show that there was no connection to Office A V?
A No.
Q Now what about monthly strength reports for camp command and guard units?
A That means that the camp commandants had to send monthly strength reports to Office Group D.
Q And in Office Group D to Main Department A V 4?
A Yes, that was the agency competent and concerned for these things.
Q Did you ever in office A V receive strength reports from these agencies?
A No, never.
Q And please look at the other paragraphs. Are they the same? Do they mean the same?
A Yes, it is quite the same thing.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q So let us make it quite clear once more. This decree was issued by whom?
A It came from Chief of Office Group D, Gruppenfuehrer Gluecks.
Q And it concerns, as you say, monthly reports to the various departments of Office Group D. They were responsible?
A Yes.
Q And does it show under a Chief of Office D-1? I see Chief of Office D 3 for the dental stations, for the chief of Office D 4, and then for Main Department A 5 V. Then again Chief of Office D 1 and Chief of Office D 2. You as an expert and former member of the WVHA, does that show to you without any doubt that the Main Department A V 4 was part of Office Group D?
A Yes, because Office Chief D could never give official orders to A V 4 unless it had been his subordinate.
Q And that also corresponds to what you have told us from your own knowledge?
A Quite.
Q Were you ever told the reason why A V 4 was so independent within Office Group D? Was it based on any special agreement or something?
A Yes, that was an arrangement between Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl and Gruppenfuehrer Gluecks on the occasion of the incorporation. Moreover, it had been a completely alien department and from a personal point of view it had not been suitable because both training and service were quite different.
Q You said two things just now. First of all, it was a definite arrangement between Pohl and Gluecks?
A Yes.
Q That is known to you?
A That is how Brigadefuehrer Fanslau explained it to me at the time.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q At the time?
A Yes, at the time.
Q And secondly, factually speaking, it was an entirely different thing. What are these differences in the administrative career and the career of a concentration camp service?
A You mean as far as the tasks were concerned?
Q Well, let us say first of all the tasks, and then later on in the development.
A All I can describe for you is the career of an administrative officer after his training, because I do not know the work done in a concentration camp.
Q You don't know that, do you?
A An administrative officer was responsible for the whole of the money, supplies, expenses, personal expenses, wages, salaries of the employees. He had to provide food, billets and clothing. These were the tasks of an administrative officer, which had nothing to do with the tasks and duties of a real concentration camp service.
Q The two careers, were there any differences in their uniforms?
A Yes. An administrative officer wore a light blue color, whereas the concentration camp people wore a brown shaded color.
Q Where were the offices of Office A V in Berlin Unter den Eichen?
A All the agencies and departments, that is to say, I must modify this, apart from W and some of C, but most of the office groups A B and some of C were concentrated in one big building in Lichterfelde Unter den Eichen. Office Group A was at a distance of about 200 or 300 meters from the other office groups. You had to cross the street to get there.
Q It was, in other words, not in the same building where the offices of Pohl were, for instance?
A No, I said we had to cross the street, walk for about 200 Court No. II, Case No. 4.or 300 meters, and go into a different building.
Q Now, did administrative officers ever work in Office Group D?
A I can only remember how five or six administrative officials were transferred there, whereas Office Group D had about 25 or 30 administrative officials, but most of them when the concentration camps were incorporated joined it and remained there until the end.
Q They were not put at the disposal then by Office A V?
A No, they had been in the concentration comps before.
Q And in that direction there were about 25 or 30 officials active?
A Yes.
Q How many administrative officials were there altogether in the Waffen SS?
A I think we had about 3,000 administrative officials in the Waffen SS.
Q And of those 3,000 there were for Office Group D only about 25 to 30?
A Yes, including those who work in Office Group D. Office Group D included concentration camps.
Q You mean administrative officials in concentration camps?
A Yes.
Q The personnel agency A V 4 was located where?
A In Oranienburg with the Office Group.
Q These four or five administrative officials who came from Office A V and were transferred to D, how were they selected?
A There were not selected particularly. There was no special training necessary there. They were probably selected according to age. They preferred elderly people, calm people, who were no longer able to serve in the war. Younger persons were needed for the troops.
Q And any special selection and training for the work in concentration camps did not exist?