May it please the court, I do not know whether the Tribunal made the correction which was pointed out by counsel for the defense as to the date of the face of this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. WALTON: I shall treat it then as the corrected date 1940.
BY MR. WALTON:
Q. Why then did this office address the complaint to your office in Berlin rather than to the Inspectorate of the concentration camp?
A. I don't quite understand your question.
Q. Why do you suppose that this complaint came to your office or was addressed to you as chief of Department I, rather than to the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps?
JUDGE PHILLIPS: The Inspectorate of Concentration Camps had not taken it over at that time.
MR. WALTON: That is quite true, Your Honor.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: According to the testimony the Office I/5 was transferred to the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps on September 1, 1941.
MR. WALTON: I withdraw that question.
Q. Now, then, this complaint was addressed to you as chief of the Department I in the Main Office for Budget and Construction, was it not?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall having received this letter?
A. No, I can't recall that at all. I have already stated that in the course of my direct examination. I stated that at that time I could not recall this letter and I believe that I did not read it, because the contents were such that I certainly would remember them, if I had read the letter.
Q. Wasn't your policy in 1940 to have unusual and extraordinary occurrences reported to you directly?
A. Yes, that is correct. It is possible that I was away on a trip at that time and that Burboeck on his own initiative took this letter. I really can't say exactly anymore. Furthermore, the contents of this letter show that the work of the labor allocation officers in the concentration camps was constantly sabotaged by the concentration camp administration, and that is the main contention of this letter. Grimm makes a very detailed and precise complaint in this letter.
Q. But Grimm's main complaint is against the labor allocation officer in Dachau who also was under your Main Department I/5, does he not?
A. Well, I assume that the labor allocation officer at Dachau was just as influenced by the commander as was the case in all other instances.
Q. If this matter had been reported to you, what action, if any, would you have taken, particularly with respect to the condition of the clothes of the inmates who arrived at Buchenwald from Dachau?
A. First of all, I must say, Mr. Prosecutor, that it is difficult today to say what I would have done at the time if I had know that. Secondly, with regard to the complaint about the clothing, I must point out that at that time there was not as yet a lack of clothing and that the inferior clothing equipment of this transport was only negligence or it was intended to be that way by Dachau. Otherwise, I cannot explain that at all.
Q. If this matter had been called to your attention, would you have had the power to make your own investigation to find out just where the fault lay that these prisoners arrived in this condition?
A. No, it was not within my power, because in order to enter a camp I had to have the permission of Gluecks. I probably could have taken up the matter exactly as Burboeck did and then I would have discussed it again with Gluecks, because he was the only man who could correct the situation and perhaps he would be able to punish the people whose fault the situation was. I myself was unable to do that.
Q. Then at this particular time you did not have supervisory control or disciplinary control of Untersturnfuehrer Stumpff and the labor allocation officer in Dachau, did you?
A. That is something quite different. I had, disciplinary authority over Untersturmfuehrer Stumpff and Grimm, but I had no authority over the personnel of the concentration camps.
Q. Could you not have made an investigation on this account through your labor allocation officer in Dachau?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, I don't know how I should answer your question. After all, I didn't know anything about the whole matter. What I would have done at the time - well, I know that my testimony is important and I can't say any more today how I would have acted at that time under certain condi tions.
Q. Witness, I believe you stated yesterday, or in your direct testimony, that Pohl in his affidavit stated that you were interested in keeping the inmates alive, well fed, and well clothed. Now, in my mind, and I assume in the mind of the Tribunal, it is difficult to reconcile a statement like that with what you have to say concerning the Grimm letter, which is now before you. I am trying to determine the policy of your office where such occurrences as these took place and where your office was formally notified and I am also trying to determine what action, if any, your office would or could take. Do you wish to comment on that?
A. I can only say on that subject that with regards to clothing at that time we were not facing any shortage, as I have already said. If any bad conditions existed here, then this was only the fault of the competent administration of the concentration camp. The only thing that could be done against that would have been a complaint to the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps. The labor allocation officer had nothing to do with the clothing of the inmates. That was exclusively the task of the administration of the concentration camp and this matter was exclusively subordinate to Gluecks, the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps. Therefore, only Gluecks could have settled the matter.
Q. Prosecution next desires to discuss with the witness Document No. 2128-A, which is in Document Book 18, Prosecution Exhibit 331, and is found on page 12.
THE PRESIDENT: What is your exhibit number?
MR. WALTON: Exhibit No. 331, sir, page 12.
THE PRESIDENT: Not in Book 18. The first exhibit in Book 18 is 457.
MR. WALTON: You don't find in Book 18 Document No. 2128. My information evidently was in error.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: It's Book 17.
MR. WALTON: I am sorry, sir, Book 17.
THE PRESIDENT: It's in Book 12.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Book 12, page 12.
MR. WALTON: I apologize to the Tribunal. My information was supplied by someone else.
I wish to cross-examine the witness on only two paragraphs of this particular document, paragraph 6 and paragraph 9. The first one, paragraph 6, headed "Clothing Economy", is found on page 4 of this document and on page 5 of the original.
For come unexplained reason we are having difficulty in trying to locate it in the German document hook.
THE PRESIDENT: Book 12, page 12, in the English.
MR. WALTON: In order to save time we will forget that until this can be straightened out and take up another matter.
Will you get Document Book 7 in the German, please?
May it please the Tribunal, we will next discuss with the witness Document NO-422, which is found in Document Book 7, Exhibit 202, on page 35.
Q. Now, witness, yesterday you denied knowledge of Ahnenerbe, but for the benefit of the Court, I ask you to took at this document and particularly paragraph 5 thereof and from your knowledge of the procedure followed in the WVHA, to whom would Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl refer Sievers when he made inquiries as to the cost for the establishment of this institution?
A. That is NO-422, isn't it?
Q. That's right. NO-422 is a letter over the signature of Himmler, which is addressed to the Reich Manager of the Ahnenerbe, SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers. Is that the same document?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. I particularly call your attention to paragraph 5 where Himmler states that in order to establish this he orders the chief of the SS Economic and Administrative Main Office to be contacted with regards to the cost, which can be borne by the Waffen-SS. Do you see that, paragraph 5?
A. Yes.
Q. My question is: From your knowledge of the procedure which was customarily followed in the WVHA to whom would the Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl refer Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers when he made inquiries as to the part of the cost which the Waffen-SS must bear?
THE PRESIDENT: May I condense that question both for the sake of the witness and ourselves?
MR. WALTON: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: Whom did Pohl ask about this?
A. Pohl would have asked the man who had to do with the financing of the Waffen--SS. That would be my brother in A-I.
Q. Do you know whether or not your brother was ever asked about this matter?
A. I don't know that.
Q. Now, on the next page, which according to my information is Document Book 7, page 36, and is Document 920, Prosecution Exhibit 2-3, on the subject of the Financing Department for Military and Scientific Research, Witness, I ask you in lieu of your testimony on this document that the name was wrong, that it should have gone to the SS- Brigadefuehrer Loerner, or your brother, did you in fact receive this letter, since it was addressed directly to you?
A. First of all, I must point out that this is not a letter, but this is a file note, which was issued by the Ahnenerbe and which remained in the Ahnenerbe. I have testified that this information that this man Wolff who signed it, received, probably referred to the fact that before as Chief of Office A-1 in the Main Office, Budget and Construction, I had something to do with the the questions of finances, but from the 1st of February, 1942 on, the WVHA was established and in this Main Office I had nothing further to do with questions of finance. It is also shown by the other documents that this matter was actually dealt with by my brother and Sievers, who is defendant here in the medical case, could also be asked and he will have to admit that he never discussed the matter with me.
Q. You further testified that you did manufacture in the clothing factory at Dachau certain experimental clothing. I ask you now whether this Department for Scientific Military Research ever sent an order to you or to the clothing factory at Dachau for any experimental clothing?
A. The Ahnenerbe was unable to give me any orders. I never received an inquiry, request, or demand for the manufacture of experimental clothing. The clothing which I have referred to in my direct examination was only test uniforms for the troops which were to be taken and tested. Himmler always had new ideas about the clothing and the uniforms of troops and therefore we had to manufacture a different type of clothing and we had to send it to a division in the field in order to have it tested under combat conditions. These were the only test clothing which we manufactured. With scientific experiments this has nothing whatever to do.
Q. Then you never manufactured any clothing?
A. I don't know anything about it.
Q. A moment please. Then you never manufactured any clothing upon the request of Dr. Rascher, is that correct?
A. I have already stated that I do not know anything about that. It is possible that the clothing plant manufacured the clothing for it in order to have the heating bag placed there. However, I don't know anything about that and I can't testify about it here. However, we never manufactured clothing for experiments on human beings. The document to which I have referred also shows that the experimental clothing was manufactured by the Textile Institute at Munich-Gladbach.
Q. Let me call to your attention, Witness, Document Book 7, which you have and Document NO-287. It is found on page 104 of the English Translation. It is Prosecution exhibit 212. You have that document no, Witness?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. This is a letter from Brandt, which is addressed to Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl and in which he requests Dr. Rascher to be assisted as much as possible in his experiments at Dachau. Now, in the last paragraph of that letter he states, "Will you please give orders that the clothing plant in Dachau assist SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher by producing the necessary experimental clothing." I do not mean to read into this letter that it was for medical experiments on human beings but I wish to refresh your memory to the effect that as far as you know, you knew nothing about experimental clothing. Did you receive a copy of this letter?
A. No, I cannot recall ever having received a copy.
Q. Was this information conveyed to you by Pohl, or this request conveyed to you by Pohl?
A. I don't know anything about it.
Q. In the normal course of events, is it possible that your office received a copy of this letter or that the clothing plant at Dachau reported to your office that it was engaged in such a project?
A. The possibility exists, yes.
MR. WALTON: May it please the court, since we are unable to discuss what I consider a fairly important document because of our inability to find the German copy, I find myself having reached the stage in the case where I desire to cross-examine the witness on the so-called SS-Enterprises, of which his office or he himself was more or less directly concerned.
It is different matter than we have discussed so far in the cross-examination. Furthermore, it is at least equal to half of the examination and I hope to finish this afternoon. I await the court's decision in the matter of time, because I hesitate...
THE PRESIDENT: What do you want to do? What do you want? What is your plan?
MR. WALTON: I hesitate to get started on this and be interrupted right in the middle of the discussion.
THE PRESIDENT: What is your plan? Perhaps we won't need any apology at all. Would you like to recess and start afresh this afternoon?
MR. WALTON: I should like to-
THE PRESIDENT: We are quite open to a direct approach Sir. Come right out.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Might I suggest though that during the recess you attempt to organize the cross-examination in a way that we won't lose the time that we did this morning. I don't say this unkindly, but I do believe that there was a great loss of time this morning.
THE PRESIDENT: I shall do my best.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess at this time, but we will resume at 1:30, which gives the same interval -instead of 1:45.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess until 1:30.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
THE MARSHAL: Take your seats, pleas.
The Tribunal is again in session.
GEORGE LOERNER - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)
MR. WALTON: In the morning session it was discovered that Document No. 2128-A was left out of Document Book 12, in the German Document book. I have enough copies in German. I would like the Court to consider Document NO-2128-A in Document Book 12, Exhibit 331, on page 12.
BY MR. WALTON:
Q Witness, will you indicate when you are ready to be questioned on that document?
A I am quite ready.
MR. WALTON: Your Honors, this document is a decree from Pohl which was approved by Himmler on a reorganization of the Economic and Administrative Office of the Higher SS Police Leaders in the occupied territories, which included the General Government.
BY MR. WALTON:
Q Do you remember having seen this document before?
A Yes.
Q Then I invite your attention specifically to paragraph 6 of these regulations which on my copy appears on page 4, and I assume that is on page 5 of the original. Now, I ask you whether or not your office in the WVHA exercised any supervision or control over the establishment or the restarting of manufacturing plants for clothing in these territories outside the Reich?
A This decree was to prevent that the troops would independently use any raw material or even waste it. It was to be achieved through this decree that raw materials which were at the disposal of troop units of SS economists should be utilized to the fullest degree. For that reason that decree was issued. I would like to point out right from the beginning that Globocnik's enterprises were not concerned with this decree because Globocnik had in this respect the special order from the Reichfuehrer-SS, and the SS economists also had no influence on these enterprises.
Q Was not this an attempt to get all processing of materials from the occupied territories away from Globocnik's enterprises in Lublin and under the control and supervision of the WVHA?
A No, that had nothing to do with that because Globocnik in this case had a special order and was not touched at all by this order.
Q Then I ask you again, did the WVHA exercise control over the establishment or restarting of manufacturing plants for clothing which this decree was supposed to cover in these territories outside the Reich?
A I cannot recall any such enterprises.
Q Did your office ever receive any reports from the factories in the occupied territories of the east on their production?
A I know nothing about this. I cannot recall such reports.
Q If they manufactured clothing would it be likely that this clothing would come back to your warehouses in the Reich, or a part of it, for distribution?
A No, that is not correct, because these enterprises only worked for the armed forces, no orders were not issued by us.
Q Did you state on cross-examination - I am sorry, on direct examination, that your office had the duty of supplying all troops in garrisons, all troops of the Waffen-SS in garrisons, or until such time as they were committed as fighting troops?
A The clothing of the Waffen-SS was supplied by us, including the units at the front, but this clothing came from Germany, and the responsible agency there was B-II in the clothing factory.
Q Then is it possible for shipments of clothing to be sent to the troops from these enterprises who were under the direct control of the SS Economic Administrator, the representative of the SS Economic Administrative Office, in the occupied territories?
A No, all supplies, including clothing for the Waffen-SS, went according to the orders and decrees of the OKH, and all supplies for the troop units were also effected by the clothing factory to the troops direct. It is possible that the troops had clothing which had to be repaired sent to such factories. That is possible, but that would have been up to the troop units themselves.
Q I should like for you to consider paragraph 9 in this same report next. Now this paragraph states that all raw material control is vested in the SS-Economic and Administrative Main Office. Does that include the raw material in the conquered territories of the east?
A Here we are concerned with raw materials which were in the possession of the Waffen-SS of the individual units. The raw materials which were acquired in the occupied territories we were unable to administer at all. That was entirely and exclusively up to the governmental department set up by the ministry of the Eastern Territories. We are here always concerned with raw materials which are already in the possession of the troop movements, and the idea was that the troops would not have clothing or anything else manufactured through black market activities, and it is especially stated here that the Government General is exempted in paragraph B.
Q. That is correct, but in other territories besides the Government General, should the troops capture raw materials, would this be turned over to your office or to the Reich Ministry of Economics?
A. I can not recall that any important quantities were delivered by the troops. If any had arrived, we would have passed them on to the Reich Ministry of Economics, because any processing without permission of the Reich Ministry of Economics was quite out of the question. The supervision of the Reich Ministry of Economics and its sub-departments over the economic enterprises, that is to say, the manufacturing enterprises was so strict and severe that an enterprise could not carry out the processing without permission of that ministry.
Q. Did you at any time or did the Economic Administrative Main Office order the construction of any factories in these occupied territories -- clothing factories or textile and leather goods factories?
A. I know nothing about that. I have no information.
Q. The Prosecution at this time would like to discuss with the witness Document NO 544, which is found in Document Book 14, Exhibit 398, and on Page 72. Witness, this is a copy of the registration of the firm German Economic Enterprises, Ltd., in the District Court in the commercial Register, Section B, 22 November 1942. I ask you to look through that and see if, through your connection with the German Economic Enterprises, this represents a fairly true picture of the number of enterprises under the DWB.
A. The list is correct, as far as I can see.
Q. Now I ask that you turn to Page 5 of that document, which is Page 5 in the English copy also, and ask whether or not you were ever manager of the DWB.
A. Yes. That becomes clear from the document, and I also described precisely in my direct examination how this thing was handled.
Q. Now, you became co-manager with Pohl, officially, on 22 November 1941, did you not?
A. No, that is not quite correct. On 23 July 1941 I became a manager. That becomes clear from this document.
Q. But officially, when it was registered on 22 November, you still were manager or co-manager of the DWB.
A. I was a manager from 23 July 1941 until the end.
Q. Now I should like to call to the witness's attention in Document Book 14, Page 79, Exhibit 384, Document 1039.
THE PRESIDENT: Page what?
MR. WALTON: Page 79 in the English.
THE PRESIDENT: That is not the same document.
JUDGE MUSSMANO: What is the number of the document?
MR. WALTON: The document is 1039 in your Document Book. The Exhibit Number is 384.
THE PRESIDENT: No. 384 is on Page 19.
MR. WALTON: I am sorry, sir. Again my information was in error.
BY MR. WALTON:
Q. Does the witness have this document before him?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, I believe that you stated in your direct examination that you never had anything to do with Staff W and that you can give no information concerning it because it was exclusively Pohl's agency. Now, you also stated that you were listed on the corporation records of the Reich as one of the co-managers of a German Economic Works. Now, Dr. Hohberg's survey of the Economic Enterprises shows that Staff W was concerned with the DWB industries, according to this survey. Is that not correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, on Page 5 of the Document Book, in English, there is an address to the Reichsfuehrer submitting for his information a survey of the Economic Enterprises of the SS Economic and Administrative Office in their present state, so I ask you this question, witness:
Your position as co-manager of the DWB placed you in Amtsgruppe W, did it not?
A. I was Pohl's representative and deputy with Amtsgruppe W.
Q. Now, this survey shows that a number of subsidiary companies were owned by DWB. Was the Ost-Industrie one of the subsidiary companies under DWB?
A. No, it did not belong to DWB.
Q. Do you see those marks in the form of the letter "T" opposite each one of those names, which indicate that it is a subsidiary of DWB?
A. Of what company are you speaking now?
Q. it states right under the paragraph "Staff W", "German Economic Enterprises, Ltd., Berlin"--abbreviated, DWB. "Parent companies of the subsidiary companies hereinafter marked 'T', the enterprises of the head office are guided from here, particularly with reference to taxes and prices." Do you see that?
A. Yes, I can see that.
Q. Now, public Utility, Dwellings and Homestead, Ltd, in Dachau is a subsidiary company of the DWB, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. Also, the German Medicines, Ltd., located in Prague, was a subsidiary of the DWB; is that right?
A. I am bound to assume that from this document. I did not know it.
Q. Right under the German Medicine, Ltd. it lists the East Industry, Ltd., of Lublin. Was not that industry commonly known as Osti?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was a subsidiary of DWB, according to this survey.
A. I can see that from this document here. Up to this moment I always thought that Osti had not been a subsidiary company of the DWB. Either I made a mistake or the author of this document is making a mistake. I do not know which is the case.
Q. Then I can only ask you to testify according to the document and then you can give what comments you wish afterwards. According to this document, from Public Utility, Dwellings and Homestead, Ltd of Dachau through Osti Industrie, five separate industries were under Staff W; is that correct?
A. Yes, quite.
Q. Then you were, whether you knew it or not, connected with the Staff W industries in the WVHA?
A. Not with Staff W, but with the DWB.
Court No. 2 Case 4 page I
Q. Well, was not the DWB a part of the STAFF W industries according to this survey?
A. No. The DVB was a commercial company with limited liabilities duly registered, and the Staff W was an institution where experts belonged who advised Pohl when he led these enterprises. But the DWB was not part of Staff W.
Q. Are you not one of the founders of the Osti Industry with Pohl, having 25,000 shares in your name?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you interested either administratively or actually in another of the subsidiary companies known as the German Earth and Stone Works' the Dest.
A. No, I cannot remember that.
Q. Where was the labor for the East Industry Works obtained?
A. I don't know that. I was ordered to found the Osti Industry just as I was ordered to found the DWB. The management of the DWB or the Osti was not part of my duties.
Q. Were you interested in any of the companies listed from W-I through W-VIII in this survey?
A. I said on direct examination what I am unable to say in detail whether I had taken any part in the foundation of this or that company. I know that it was so in the case of the textile and leather works, but otherwise I am quite unable to say whether I was taking any part in the foundation of any of these many companies.
Q. I call your attention to Office W-I or W-VI, Roman numeral. This was the company for the utilization of textile and leather located in Ravensbrueck. Did you ever have anything to do with this concern?
A. I said just now that when that company was founded I took part as a foundation member. That happened in about 1940 and 1941 in May or June. That company also was absorbed by DWB on which occasion I left as a shareholder.
Q. In any of the other industries mentioned here, not covered in this cross examination, were you a co-founder or a co-manager of that company?
A. I said just now I may have participated in the foundation of this or that company, but which ones they were I am quite unable to say today. It was purely the act of founding this company and I had orders to participate. I gave my signature under the foundation document and after that usually the signature under the document which transferred the shares to Pohl, and that was as far as the matter went.
Q. I should like next to call the witness's attention to Document Book 15. This document NO-1289 is found in the English document book on page 4 and is prosecution exhibit 406. Witness, do you have that document before you?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, this document is a directive for new wage scales for prisoners employed in economic enterprises; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And according to the distribution list the Amtsgruppe W subdivisions got them and your office received a copy for information. Were you interested in this setting of the wage scales for the prisoners in both Amtsgruppe B and Amtsgruppe W?
A. Why that letter reached office group B I do not know, nor do I know why office group A was given a copy. I assume it was passed on for purely informative purposes. The actual reason I am quite unable to see. It might have been because in our troop warehouses some inmates were working and for that, of course, we had to pay. Therefore, we had to hear about the new wage scale. That might have been the reason.
Q. At the end of the year 1942 was any of this money set out in the wage scale, so far as you know, ever paid to the concentration camp inmates?
A. I am unable to say much about this because at that time I was not very precisely informed about payment of inmates.
All I know is that if they received something they received only a small part, in the shape of bonuses. Most of the money was transferred to the Reich.
Q. I should like to call the witness's attention next to Document Book 17.
A. I have not got Book 17 here.
Q. The document to which I refer is Exhibit 454 and is found on page 156 and is Document NO-1221. Do you have that document book before you now, witness?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And in the Document 1221 please turn to page 4 of the German text, page 3 of the English. Now, this is a report on the activity regarding the founding of a corporation, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. And who are the founders as listed in this report?
A. SS-B rigadefuehrer August Frank, and SS-Brigadefuehrer Loerner, Georg Loerner.
Q. And that Georg Loerner is you, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. And this firm was that leather and textile processing firm which we spoke about in a previous report shown to you; is that not correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, it states down there in Article 4 that out of the capital of the corporation each one of the two partners was to pay 10,000 Reichsmarks. Where did that money come from? Was that from your own fund or did it belong to the WVHA?
A. Here I should say quite generally that in the case of all these foundations it was not the founders who invested their own capital. They were only trustees. The money came from the WVHA.
Q. Now, since you are a founder of this firm, did you or did you not receive a copy of this report?
A. I don't know that anymore. I assume that I received the report.