Witness, I shall ask if this document is not a list of the concerns which operated under the DWB. You may state whether it is reasonably correct or not.
A. This shows the firms and the managers and sub-managers. At this date I am unable to say that it is correct, but I assume that it is correct.
Q. And this report shows that you were still connected as one of the principal stockholders or co-managers of the German Economic Works, does it not?
A. I have admitted all the time that from June 1941 until the end I was the second manager of the DWB.
Q. And also the second manager of all of the concerns which the DWB owned, is that right?
A. No, I was not manager of the subsidiary companies but only of the DWB.
Q. I would like the witness to consider--
THE PRESIDENT: Are there other documents?
MR. WALTON: One more, sir, and one exhibit which I shall introduce which is about five lines of handwritten material.
THE PRESIDENT: In order to divide up the interpreting evenly, we will call a recess now.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
(The hearing reconvened at 1525 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY MR. WALTON:
Q Now, Witness, I desire to direct your attention to the closing days of the month of April, 1945. Did you remain in Berlin during this time?
A No. On the 15th of April I went to the South with Pohl and the larger part of the WVHA.
Q Where did you go when you went south from Berlin?
A First to Dachau, then to Bayrisch-Zell, and finally to Tiersee.
Q Were you in Dachau in April of 1945?
AApproximately from the 17th to the 28th of April, 1945. However, I can't give you the exact date any more. Approximately around that time.
Q Were you at Dachau when prisoner transports from evacuated concentration camps arrived at Dachau?
A I was located at the training center of Dachau, where the guards were stationed. Whenever transports came they arrived in the concentration camp itself.
Q You never saw any prisoners then being evacuated from other concentration camps to Dachau, did you?
A I can't recall that any more today. It is quite possible that I did see such a transport. However, I don't know.
Q I will ask you this question: Were you during this time in the concentration camp at Dachau?
A I was not within the concentration camp itself during that time.
Q Did you at that particular time during your stay at Dachau attend the banquet given to the members of Pohl's staff?
A Well, it would be exaggerated to call it a banquet; it was a a dinner affair.
Q I submit to you, Document NO-2331, which you find in Document Book 21. It is found on page 30 of the Document Book 21 in the English.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A What is the number of the document, please?
QNO-2331. Do you have the document?
A Yes.
Q Then I ask you particularly to attend to the next to the last paragraph and the last paragraph to Page 3 of the original. In the paragraph which starts: "At about the same time" in the affidavit of Gerhardt Burboeck, which is the next to the last paragraph on Page 3 of the original, he states that he saw you in Dachau during the latter part of April. Then he goes ahead and gives some harrowing scenes in the next paragraph, which it is not necessary for this Court to inquire into at this particular time.
A I haven't found this part yet. I haven't found the spot where he refers to my name. Just where is this supposed to be? On what page?
THE PRESIDENT: Page 3.
Q Page 3 of the original affidavit. I presume the German follows the same course.
MR. WALTON: Apparently, sir, they have gotten the wrong affidavit of Burboeck in this particular document book which the witness has. In order to save time, I can withdraw the questions on this particular affidavit and proceed to the next or the last document if the Court so desires.
THE PRESIDENT: See if Dr. Haensel finds it there. Is any other counsel's document book Number XXI? The defendant has the right book?
DR. HAENSEL: This is the same as in the other book. It is not the some affidavit which is contained in the English book.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's go on.
BY MR. WALTON:
Q Witness, I believe that you stated on your direct examination that you did not have any personal contact with Himmler. Am I correct in my memory of this fact?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A I stated that during the war I came to see Himmler three or four times together with Pohl. That was only for official conferences. I did not have any other contact with Himmler at all.
Q Would it refresh your memory if I were to ask you if you ever received a gift from Himmler personally?
A Well, we always received a gift on our birthday. All officers received that gift if they had a certain grade. That is correct.
Q You received one of these gifts from Himmler; is that correct?
A Yes, I received one every birthday.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO): What was the gift that you received?
THE WITNESS: Well, that varied. Sometimes you would get a picture, a painting, or some chinaware. You would not get an original painting, however. It would just be a print.
BY MR. WALTON:
Q Witness, I submit herewith to you a photographic copy of a letter which I will ask you to identify.
THE PRESIDENT: This isn't impeaching. He admits the contents of the letter, doesn't he?
MR. WALTON: I don't mean to impeach him, sir. I want to know if this is a letter which he wrote to Himmler to thank him for this particular gift on this particular occasion. If he identifies the letter, I would then like to introduce it as an exhibit for the prosecution; and then I have finished.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
A Without having looked at the original, I admit being the author of this letter.
MR. WALTON: The prosecution at this time desires to introduce Document Number NO-1562, which is Prosecution Exhibit 571. No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions from defense counsel?
DR. HAENSEL (for the defendant Georg Loerner): I only want Court No. II, Case No. 4.to ask very few questions, your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q The Prosecution today has pointed out three documents in Document Book XIX, which represent a company resolution of the Osti of the 1st of March 1943. It is alleged that Loerner had signed it. This is the decision where Globocnik is being withdrawn as the manager. The other documents have similar contents, and they refer to the dissolution of the company. Can you recall whether these documents were dictated in your presence, or was this done in such a way that you went to a notary and that these documents had already been completed and were ready for signature?
A The latter is correct. The documents were completely ready to be signed.
Q Was this the usual procedure whenever companies were dissolved or when they were established?
A That was always the case. I came to these conferences. I heard the report. I signed and then I left again.
Q Do you know the story about the German general whose adjutant gave him a document to sign, and the adjutant tried to explain to him just what the contents were? The general then told him, "I'm not asking you what I am to sign but where I am to sign". Did you handle these cases in a similar manner?
A I don't want to extend that to my entire official activity but only to my participation in these economic enterprises. It applied to them. Otherwise I always looked at the matters carefully before signing them.
Q In our commercial law there is a regulation that certain files with a notary, for example, the establishment of a G.m.b.H., are to take place through a record by the notary. That is to say, the notary has to read the record before several persons concerned, and at the end there is a note that it is approved, planned, and signed. Then we have Court No. II, Case No. 4.other documents as, for example, the transfer of managers or the registration into the trade register where the signature is necessary and the certification by the notary, where the notary does not have to read it out loud.
Then we have notaries who also extend this simplified procedure to the records and one only has to sign whatever is placed before him. How was it when these companies were established? Were all the documents read or did you only have to sign them?
A I cannot state that exactly anymore. However, I am quite certain that a part of them was not read.
Q Or didn't it always go very quickly?
A Yes, always.
Q The main documents which the Prosecution has presented and read yesterday and today according to their place of capture, came from one and the same source, without any doubt. I believe it is not very hard to identify that source from which they originated. What do you think about this source, Mr. Loerner? Where did these documents come from?
A The documents came from the offices of the labor allocation officer Grimm at Buchenwald.
Q Therefore, all of them are documents which he either received, or they are his drafts, or they are matters which passed through his hands?
A Yes.
Q The Tribunal has asked you today whether you had any evidence to show that the supervision over I/5 as has been shown by the documents, was not transferred to Gluecks from September 1941 on, but that the transfer already took place in the spring of 1941. What was your answer to that?
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE PHILLIPS): Either the translation is wrong or your question is wrong. I did not ask the witness that. I don't know whether the translation is wrong or whether your question is Court No. II, Case No. 4.wrong.
DR. HAENSEL: I asked the question whether Loerner had been asked today whether he had any evidence to show that the direction of Office I/5 had already been transferred to Gluecks in the spring and not in the fall or September of 1941.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE PHILLIPS): That's correct, but that wasn't the translation we got.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
You answered "No." I think that this is the only question which you have not answered quite truthfully because I assume that the man Grimm who has been mentioned here and in whose office all these documents were found can also explain this whole problem to us. Since Grimm is located at Dachau, I request permission to try to see min and obtain an affidavit from him. Then I should like to present this affidavit in the further course of the trial so that we will be able to approach this problem somewhat closer in the future.
THE PRESIDENT: If you'll make the regular application, Dr. Haensel, it will be granted, and you may present it at any time before the end of the trial.
DR. HAENSEL: Thank you.
Q These documents show us a picture, which, however, should be explained some more. What was the idea of the labor allocation which I/5 had to deal with in the beginning in 1940?
A The idea of this assignment was to now have the allocation of labor regulated.
Q Before I/5 directed the labor allocation, did the inmates have to work also, or was forced labor, as the Prosecution calls it, introduced in this way?
A Well, the inmates always had to work.
Q What kind of work did they have to do before?
A They had to do a lot of useless work. They worked on things which were only decided upon by the commander or his personnel.
Q What was Office I/5 supposed to do now?
AAs I said before, they were to render the work more useful. That is to say, the waste of labor was to disappear. Everybody now was to got a job according to his strength and his capabilities. Therefore it could not happen that mechanics would be cleaning roads or that a baker would be put into a machine shop, and so forth. That in my opinion was the task of this labor allocation.
Q In Exhibit 567, an order of Burboeck of the 11th of April, 1941, he writes to the subordinates of Office I/5 as follows:
"At the same time every officer is to think about the appropriateness of establishing a useful card file index of the inmates." What does he mean by that?
A That was the beginning of an organization by professions because only by means of such an organization could the useful labor allocation take place, which I have described.
Q Was this allocation of labor also in the interests of the inmates as well as the agency where the inmates were working?
A I believe so. Of course, I have seen it myself during my imprisonment, just how much I would have liked to work when I was locked up and unable to perform any work whatsoever. If a person has to do some work, then it is better when he can do the sort of work in which he has been trained. It is better for him than to perform work of which he has no idea at all.
Q For example, an electrician should not be occupied with painting barns.
A Yes, that is exactly the example which I gave before.
Q Did I/5 achieve its goal within the short period of time?
A No.
Q Why not?
A Because Gleucks and his commanders did not permit it.
Q Why did they not permit it?
A Because they did not want any other agency to interfere with their work; in any case Gluecks wanted to achieve that he should be entrusted with these tasks. That is what I suggested later on.
Q Can you remember the Grimm affidavit, his report about his reception at Buchenwald?
A Yes.
Q How did it impress you at that time?
A That was not only the case with Grimm but that happened everywhere. The commanders from the very first opposed these men; and they sabotaged their tasks wherever they were able to do so.
Burboeck also reported to me frequently that it was practically impossible to continue working in this manner. It was impossible for us to carry out this work.
Q The Prosecution has this morning asked you a hypothetical question, I did not find it necessary to object to it because I was going to follow up this hypothetical question. The Golden Rule is that a hypothetical question is permissible if it exhausts all possibilities and if the answer then has a real factual value. What would you have been able to do? What stop would you have been able to take on the complaint of Grimm?
A There was nothing I could o. Only Gluecks could have taken any stops against Koch.
Q With whom were you feuding in this matter?
A With Gluecks.
Q Now, to ask you a leading question -- therefore you could not complain to Gluecks about these things.
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Were you personally able to enter the camp and to make a surprise check there and see whether the allocation of labor was actually functioning smoothly?
A That could be done only with Gluecks' permission. I could only enter a camp when I had received the permission of Gluecks.
Q By what is that shown?
A That is shown by his orders which are contained in the files here.
Q Whose order?
A. It was an order by Gluecks or the Reichsfuehrer, I don't know exactly.
Q Were you Gluecks' superior?
A No.
Q What was your rank and what rank did Gluecks have?
A Both of us had the rank of Oberfuehrer, but even if I had had a higher rank, I still could not have given any orders to Gluecks. Even Pohl at the time could not issue any orders to Gluecks. Gluecks had an independent agency. He was subordinated to Himmler, and nobody else could give him any orders.
Q If in a bureaucratically organized office two chiefs of the same rank are assigned fields of tasks which overlap, can this condition continue for a very long period of time?
A No.
Q Then one or the other has to turn over his field of tasks to the other?
A Yes, one of the two has to relinquish some of the tasks or one must be subordinated to the other. Otherwise the work can't be carried out.
Q How was this problem solved in your case?
A It was solved in the way which I suggested. I/5 was subordinated to Gluecks.
Q Can you still recall what decisive incident took place in the middle of the year 1941?
AAre you referring to the campaign in Russia?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q In the whole policy of the concentration camps and Labor Allocation there was one big incident, the beginning of a new phase. What was it?
A The only thing I can think of is Sauckel's assignment with regard to the Labor Allocation in 1941.
Q Can you tell us something about the figures. You have told us that as far as you can recall up to the Spring of Summer of 1941, between 20,000 and 30,000 inmates were in the few concentration camps, which were shown to have existed then in the document presented today. From what time on did this increase to a very big number? Was it later on?
A That happened from the Fall of 1941 on. I can recall that from that time on the clothing requirements increased.
Q Do you believe that this has anything to do with the campaign in Russia?
A Yes, that is quite possible.
Q Therefore, the work of Office 1-5, which we have discussed, falls within the period which was prior to the incident which I called as the beginning of a new phase?
A Yes, sir, that is correct.
DR. HAENSEL: That is all, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further cross examination by defense counsel? If none, the Marshal will conduct the witness to the dock.
(Witness excused)
DR. HAENSEL: May I present an additional document book in my case. I have compiled another document book which has not been translated yet, and I would like to present it whenever the translation has been completed. I further request that I can submit some documents subsequently.
THE PRESIDENT: You may submit any further documents whenever they are available.
DR. PRIBILLA: Dr. Pribilla for the defendant Ervin Court No. II, Case No. 4.Tschentscher.
Your Honors, with the permission of the Tribunal I would like to begin the presentation of the case of the defendant Tschentscher by calling him as a witness on his own behalf.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you ready to have him called now?
DR. PRIBILLA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshall will conduct the defendant Tschentscher to the witness stand.
ERWIN OSKAR RUDOLF TSCHENTSCHER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: The witness, will raise his 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.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated.
BY DR. PRIBILLA:
Q Please tell the Tribunal your name and your date and place of birth.
A My name is Erwin Oskar Rudolf Tschentscher. My first name is Erwin. I was born on 11 February 1903 at Berlin.
Q Please describe to the Tribunal your life history and your family status.
A I was the only son of the sculptor Rudolf Tschentscher. My father died in 1910. My further education and training seemed secure from the financial point of view. However, as a result of the inflation which followed the first World War, we lost our entire property. Therefore, after having finished secondary school and junior college, I had to give up my desire to study in order to become a teacher in the higher schools of learning.
In the year of 1928 I married Helene Eckart, the daughter of a Berlin businessman, Johannes Eckart, and from that marriage two sons and two daughters were born. Now they are between the ages of nine and fifteen. In the year 1935 I was transferred to another station Court No. II, Case No. 4.at Arolsen near Kassel, where my family is still living today.
Q Please describe to the Tribunal briefly your professional training and career?
A I learned the profession of a banker, and I worked in the Deutsche Bank in Berlin. In this position I became acquainted with the important and disadvantageous effects, and also the moral effects which the inflation had caused. I learned my profession at the Berlin Stock Exchange. After the first big collapse of banks in Germany in 1929, and an economic depression prevailed, much personnel was dismissed and I myself became unemployed for about three-quarters of a year. I should like to state here that I was not dismissed among the first ones, because I was not a very capable official, but my work and my efficiency rating were rather good. Pretty soon I found a position as a secretary in the Berlin Director's office of a German Machine Construction Company. However, as the result of the depression the company was also dissolved in 1932, and again I was unemployed. Sometime later I found another position with the Reich Bank in Berlin. However, I only had the position of a temporary bank official and I could always be dismissed at short notice. Since the Reich Bank in the year of 1934 for formal reasons refused my request to take the necessary examinations as to receive a permanent appointment as an official revisor there, I now accepted an offer by the SS, and I became a revisor in the Administration of the SS Sector at Berlin for the area of the Berlin-Brandenburg district. In the year of 1934 I was appointed Chief of Administration of the SS Sector Rhine, and I was transferred to Koblenz. Towards the end of the year I was transferred to Arolsen near Kassel, where my office was also transferred. I remained there until the outbreak of the war. During the war I was used as an officer of the Administrative Service in the Police and in the Waffen-SS. During the most part of the war I was at the front as an Administrative officer of the Supply Troops, and as divisional Administrative officer. I was also Supply Officer of an Armored Division, and in the year 1943 I was recalled and transferred to the WVHA as Chief of an office.
There I remained until the end of the war.
Q What rank did you have in the General-SS and what rank did you have in the Waffen-SS?
A In the General-SS I was Standartenfuehrer. In the Police and in the Waffen-SS, at the outbreak of the war I had the rank of a captain, and at the end of the war I was Standartenfuehrer in the Waffen-SS. That is to say, I had the rank of a Colonel.
Q When did you join the NSDAP?
A I joined the NSDAP on 1 November 1928.
Q What caused you to enter the Party?
A It was not because I was looking for adventure. I must explain here how I looked at things at that time. May I further state that I came from a decidedly social democratic family. For example, one of my ancestors was even an active Socialist, and he was banned from Prussia under Bismarck. I was rather interested in politics, and even my father was also an active Socialist, and I was also brought up along these lines. However, the Social Democratic Party after the revolution of 1918, when it was the leading party in Germany, disappointed me because of some corruption scandals which were rather bad, and leading personalities of the Socialist Democratic Party, and a large number of its members were involved in them. In addition to that, Democracy in Germany at that time showed itself to have degenated to some extent, and that was not only my concept but this concept was shared by politicians abroad and they admitted it later on. Democracy in Germany was not sufficiently encouraged. There were at least three dozen parties in Germany. They promised much but as a result of the disunity and as a result of their constant sighting with each other, they were not powerful enough to adhere to a certain Party line. The governments changed in very quick successions, and the want increased together with the number of the unemployed. The danger of Germany becoming a Bolshevist State increased accordingly. The thought Court No. II, Case No. 4.of a National and at the same time a Socialist Party even without a close reference to the NSDAP, which was practically contained in the very atmosphere, and people tried to realize this idea in some smaller predecessors of the NSDAP.
Above all we did not want to be dependent on aid from foreign countries anymore in the form of loans. Also the so-called "International" did not appeal to us. We finally wanted to be able to help ourselves. We wanted a government which would mobilize all forces for the realization of these aims, and which would again improve our economic situation.
The program of the new party promised the realization of these expectations. The want and the need were so great that everybody was looking for some action. It was considered quite natural that even within the Party there were certain differences of opinion and that diversions were made from the expectations of some individuals. After all, it is quite clear that the more points there are in a program, the more the individual must disagree with some of the points. That the NSDAP in the year 1923 tried to bring about a change in the government by force can be considered which it had committed in its youth. Officially, the Party was again permitted, and Hitler maintained the point of view that he could take over the government through legal means.
I personally had a very critical point of view toward Hitler, and I had many doubts with regard to his person. However, afterwards, I always discovered that the policy which he was following at the time seemed to be justified. At least, he kept his promises at the time, and he took the action which seemed necessary in the situation, even if things seemed to be against him for a while. The result of this was that we would reproach ourselves and would be ashamed of having distrusted him. Then we would decide to stand at his side much more firmly and to give him more of our confidence. That is the way I saw it at the time, and that is the reason why I entered the Party.
Q. When did you enter the SS?
A. I entered the General SS on 1 May 1930. On 1 October 1939 -that is, after the outbreak of the war--- I was transferred into the Waffen SS.
Q. Why did you enter the SS?
A. The reasons were so unimportant that it would be superfluous for me to explain them in detail here, and it would be grotesque and absurd if I were to tell the story. It is really ridiculous. It was accidentally, and it was unimportant. I joined the SS only because of my physical size, and since I had not accepted any office in the Party up to that time, I wanted to do some more work there.
Therefore, on 1 May 1930, during a demonstration when Hitler spoke in the Sportspalast in Berlin, I for the first time did duty as an SS man. On this occasion, I also saw Himmler for the first time. However, I did not have any knowledge of any special assignments or aims of the SS which went beyond the personal protection of leading personalities at Party rallies. Nothing was known about these things at that time. When I joined the SS at Berlin, there were about 30 or 40 men, and amongst them there were some former officers who were businessmen now. We had a senior counsellor of the government, an Oberregierungsrat; we had a painter; we had a number of students, and about half of them were workers who previously had belonged to the utmost variety of parties. In looking back on the matter today, I would like to say that all these men were normal men. They were bourgeois. I never heard of any excesses, and I was never able to observe any crimes being committed within that circle.
Q. If you were an old Party and SS member, did you have any personal relationship to Himmler or Hitler?
A. I never had any personal contact with either of them.
Q. While you were a member of the General SS or later on, did you ever make any observations about the character and the activities of the SS to the effect that it was criminal?
A. I don't think that they were criminal within the sense of the Indictment. However, very soon after 1933, after the so-called seizure of power, I actually did not like it there any more, and I would like to explain this somewhat more in detail.
I have already referred to our disappointment which we had lived through at that time with regard to the other parties, and I have referred to our expectations and hopes. Very soon after 30 January 1933 and afterwards I realized that the people, unfortunately, had remained the same. Before, we had refuted the so-called policy of living off the party. We had been forbidden to apply for official positions, especially by referring to our membership in the Party and SS. Now all of a sudden, we began to see just how people were rushing at the good positions and offices.
These in particular were people who came and joined the Party at a later time. In many cases, they had joined it after the decision had already been made in 1933.
More and more I also began to dislike the intolerance and the incapability and the dishonesty of certain leading personalities. Sometimes it was such that these people considered decency, honesty and simplicity as a lack of personality, and to them these traits were just a type of inferiority complex.
I also disliked the fact that leading personalities of the Party and even agencies quite openly violated points of the program of their Party.
I disliked particularly, and I had misgivings about the fact that members of the Party of all grades and positions who had shown themselves to be incapable or who had shown themselves to be corrupt were not severely punished and removed from their positions. In some cases these people could do a lot of dirty work, and they were hurting the reputation of the Party and the State to a very considerable degree.
Q. If you recognized these deficiencies very early, did you ever try to have changes made?
A. Yes, of course. I tried it repeatedly. I frequently discussed these matters with my superiors, and I discussed these matters with other comrades, and I voiced my indignation very loudly and very heartily. In part, my superiors agreed with my opinion. However, they were also unable to change any thing; they did not have the necessary power, or it was again pointed out that these persons in question had gained particular merit during the time when the Party was struggling. Furthermore, with reference to Hitler's lack of severity towards his collaborators, it was stated that he could not be severe enough toward them. It was also stated that, on 30 January 1933 a certain type of revolution had actually taken place, and these people would never forget to add that it was a revolution where no blood had been shed and that this factor would have to be acknowledged. Therefore, we should not demand too much all of a sudden and be so narrow-minded.
These were individual cases, which were regrettable but which had been caused by individuals and that we should overlook such things. However, we were told that the Party administration and Hitler himself had been exactly informed and at the appropriate time they would pay more attention to all these things but that at the moment, more important things had to be done. First of all, we were told the foreign policy had to be established, and after all there were enough tasks to be carried out at the moment. It was stated that all these tasks demanded so much time from the persons in the government that for the time being they did not have sufficient time to carry out all the other things. However, sometime later order would finally be established inside the Party. We were promised that. After all, we had to see that point, and the Party had always had certain successes. We were told to acknowledge all these things.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess until Monday morning at 9:30.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess until 0930 hours Monday.
(20 June 1947 the Tribunal recessed until 0930 hours, 23 June 1947.)