That is the absolute phrase which came through.
THE WITNESS: I did not make such a statement.
DR. SEIDL: Will you please reply once more to this question, Witness? Will you please repeat once more what you said previously?
THE WITNESS: I stated it would be madness to exterminate these people. I did not say "now".
JUDGE MUSSMANO: Very well.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: One witness testified that in June, 1943, you went to Auschwitz on an inspection tour with a number of people with you, and that you went to the gas chamber and saw a number of sick people brought from the hospital in trucks and placed in the gas chamber and gassed, and that you and the other people with you looked in the window when they were being gassed. What do you have to say to that?
THE WITNESS: That was not me. This must be a case of mistaken identity. I have never visited Auschwitz with a staff of twenty to twenty-five people, and there I have never been in such a party nor accompanied by such a staff. Never in my life have I witnessed a gassing at Auschwitz, nor any other place for that matter. It is possible that it was the higher SS police leader, Schmauser, from Breslau, a person similar to my stature, but I have never in my life watched a gassing.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Did you make an inspection tour of Auschwitz in the month of June, 1943?
THE WITNESS: I have already stated that in 1943 I was in Auschwitz on two occasions, but I do not know exactly when. I do not remember the dates any more.
THE PRESIDENT: We will be in recess.
THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal is in recess until 1345 o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours.)
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 19 May 1947).OSWALD POHL - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued THE MARSHAL:
The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q Witness, what is the impression that a person gained when visiting a concentration camp of medium size; visiting it under normal circumstances?
A In normal times the concentration camps, which at the time-shall we say up to 1942--had not reached those huge proportuions, were installations in which the outside appearances of the camp corresponded with the situation at the time. It was still possible, however, to keep the lodging conditions in a good shape. On one side of the barracks was a row where the cots for the inmates, where every inmate had his own bed; and on the other side was the living room where every inmate had a sink of his own. And between the two were the washing and shower rooms. The clothing of the inmates also, at the time, was rather good; good clothing, underwear. And, generally speaking, a camp during normal times gave a rather orderly impression.
Q Which was the highest Reich authority that assigned the food to the concentration camps?
A The food rations for the inmates were assigned by the Reich Ministry for Food, together with the food allocations for all prisoners, that is, for those who were in punitive institutions.
Q What can you tell us with reference to these rations--these rations which you had, and the food; did you think it was sufficient, or did you find it necessary to take stops to the Ministry in order to increase it?
A It all depended on the time. As long as the food situation in Germany was still good, food rations of inmates were sufficient as well. By that I mean that they were slightly below the food allocations for the civilian population.
However, they were high enough to enable civilians to live well, and the food of the concentration camps was a little bit lower--therefore, it was sufficient. And it can be classified as good. The conditions, of course, changed, or were aggravated in the course of the war. Particularly from the summer of 1944, on.
I, myself, had no influence whatsoever on the size of rations. That is to say, I could try to increase the food at the time through the different channels. In other words, at a time when the food deteriorated--and we did that.
Q Through which channels did the camp commanders receive the food supplies?
A The camp commandant, or his administrative leader who was responsible for the food, had to got it through the Food Office on the basis of the numbers of inmates, and he received a so-called Bezugschein (Special Permit). The Food Office told him where he could procure the food. In other words, which firm could sell it to him, and the total amount of food was computed on the basis of the number of inmates. That food was then bought independently at the deliverers.
Q What were your observations that you yourself made with reference to the clothing of the inmates?
A The same applies to the clothing as applies to the food. It was sufficient so long as the supply situation in Germany did not necessitate any restrictions. It became gradually worse, and finally insufficient when that supply situation worsened or deteriorated--and finally there was almost nothing whatsoever, to say the least.
Q How was the medical situation? How was it organized within the camp? Which office was responsible for medical supplies and care? And what can you yourself say with reference to that on the basis of your own activities?
A The medical care was subordinated to the Reichsarzt-SS (Reich Physician-SS) and the Chief Physician of the Inspectorate was subordinated to him. The Reichsarzt also had to see to it that these Court No. II, Case No. 4.individual camps were provided with the necessary medical care and personnel.
The material, that is to say, the drugs--all the medical material was sent to them from the main medical camp; and the Chief Physician from the inspectorate applied for them there.
Q In the various trials it was shown repeatedly that all happenings in concentration camps were submitted to a strong secrecy. What can you say to that point, with reference to your own observations and also with reference to the practice of the Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler and the RSHA?
A. The secrecy in all offices was the same. It was based on the Fuehrer Order No. 1. That order had been affixed to all the walls of all the offices, not only of the SS, but also of the entire Wehrmacht. The order read approximately as follows: that for all the secret matters, the top secret matters, only the persons in direct connection with that matter were to gain knowledge of that fact and individuals out of that entire circle should know only so much as he needed for his share in the task. During the war, they complied with this order strictly. As far as Himmler's method is concerned, I already stated before when I described him, or, rather, his personality, namely, that he probably exaggerated that order by limiting the circle of persons which formed the Reichsfuehrung-SS administration by separating them. In other words, there was no possibility beyond that order to find out things. And that applied also to the RSHA.
Q. Witness, I shall now come to the discussion of some documents which were introduced by the prosecution in connection with evidence with reference to the concentration camps. I shall show you a few documents: from Document Book No. IV, Exhibit No. 79, the prosecution introduced three documents which referred to the transient camp of Sobibor. Document NO-482, Document Book No. 4, page number 6 of the English Document Book, it is in connection with the transient camp of Sobibor, your letter of the 15th of July, 1943, to the Reichsfuehrer SS as follows:
"According to your above instruction, the transient camp of Sobibor in the district of Lublin is to be transformed into a concentration camp.
"I have discussed the matter with SS-Gruppenfuehrer Globocnik. We both suggest to you to abandon the idea of transforming it into a concentration camp, because the purpose intended by you, namely, to set up at Sobibor a depot for the dismantling of captured ammunition, will be reached without this transformation too."
This is on page 8, Your Honors. Witness, did you have to visit the camp Sobibor yourself, before you made this statement to the Reichsfuehrer, and what was the reason for this order?
A. I did not see the concentration camp of Sobibor. I did not know it. When I made that statement with reference to that matter I relied on the statement made by Gruppenfuehrer Globocnik. In other words, I agreed with his opinion. Thereupon, I took the attitude which I told Himmler in that letter.
Q. As Exhibit 80, the Prosecution introduced Document NO-1475, Document Book No. 4, page 10, both in the English and in the German document books. This is a letter from the Director General Steyr-Daimler-Puch, A.G., to the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler, on the 14th of July, 1943, with reference to the concentration camp that is to be suggested to be set up near Wiener-Neudorf. I shall ask you now, witness what did you do after having received this letter, or, did you ever have any knowledge of it?
A. This letter is addressed to Himmler. Therefore, I could not have gained any knowledge whatsoever from this letter, nor can I remember today if I was used in this whole matter. This does not deal with setting up the concentration camp as it says here wrongly, but it is a labor camp for the Steyr-Daimler-Puch works. If I ever dealt with them I probably would have given it to the Inspectorate which would have taken care of all the other matters that were connected with creating such a camp. However, it is also possible that Himmler, as he did quite often informed the commander of Mauthausen camp directly.
Q. On the 5th of April, 1944, with the letter of the same day, you sent to the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler a map of the Government General Eastern countries and Western territories according to the status of March 1944, showing where all concentrations were on it. The prosecution has introduced this letter as Prosecution Exhibit 81, Document NO-020, Document Book No. IV, page 17, or page 16, of the English. According to that letter, there were 13 concentration camps in the Reich territory, 3 concentration camps in the Government General, 3 Concentration camps in the Eastern Territories, Eastland, and one concentration camp in the Netherlands. I am asking you now, Witness, the camps outside of the Reich territory, after the 3rd of March, 1944, were they also subordinate to the WHA, or were they subordinate to the to the SS-Reichs-Und Polizei-Fuehrer in that territory?
A. The camps in the Eastern territories were under the supervision of the Higher SS and Police leaders. As far as reporting about them was concerned, they were subordinate to the Inspectorate of concentration camps.
A. As Exhibit No. 83, the prosecution introduced a letter of the SD Security Police, of January 1941, the question of which is the commitment to concentration camps, as Document NO-743, Document Book No. IV, page 18 or 19, which they sent to the various agencies, but not to the WVHA. What can you say about that document with reference to the position of the WVHA?
A. In 1941, because this letter is from January 1941, the WVHA had nothing to do with the concentration camps. Therefore, it was not necessary either to sent this letter to the WVHA.
Q. In other words, you have no knowledge of that letter?
A. No, none.
Q. Doesn't it result from this letter also that the Chief of the Security Police, SD, or the RSHA, played quite some influence on the camps; also, the inspectorate of the concentration camp was never subordinate to the RSHA and the contents of this letter was only transferred to the inspectorate of the concentration camp?
A. Yes, that is to be referred to the decree concerning the secrecy of the Gestapo, in which it is said that the state concentration camps be administered by the secret Police. A definite ruling on which the RSHA based its power.
Q. I shall now turn to Document NO-2110. This is a letter of Amtsgruppe D of the 4th of September 1942, which was introduced by the prosecution as Exhibit 84. That's on page 22 of the German, page 20 of the English Book. It says here, literally, and I shall quote: "You will find additional decrees of the Reich Security Main Office to the subordinate police offices with reference to making the commitment papers recognizable by the stamp, "Prisoners of camp 1, 1A, 2, and 3, and this is for your information." I shall now ask you witness, did the Amtsgruppe D give you this additional decree of the RSHA, and did you have Knowledge of this letter of Amtsgruppe D?
A. No, In reference to the correspondence that took place between the RSHA, and through the Inspectorate to the concentration camps, I had no knowledge, and I can see from this letter that it concerned police matters and dealt with the classification of inmates, and these matters were not within my sphere of duties at that time, so I did not have knowledge of that letter.
Q. Exhibit No. 85, which the Prosecution introduced, are the regulations for the concentration camp of Dachau from 1933. It is Document 1216-PS, in Document Book No. 4, page 23, and on page 22 of the English. I will ask you, witness, did you know anything about these camp regulations which date from 1933?
A. I never saw these camp regulations here, and I do not believe it was ever in effect. All I knew was of the camp regulations from 1933 or 1939.
Q. And in this connection, witness, I would like to ask you a general question. Did the Inspectorate for concentration camps regulations which applied to all the concentration camps, or did you do something to that effect yourself?
A. I knew of no such thing that the Inspectorate itself gave an additional statute for concentration cams, but it is possible that the valid camp statutes were issued by the inspector of the concentration camps, if not worked on by him, as it was necessary for all the official writings to be done with Himmler's permission before it was put into effect. I know nothing of other camp statutes.
Q. The next document I would like for you to look at, is document No. NO-517, in Document Book 4, page 46, in the English Document Book on page 34; it is a file note of the defendant Baier, from Staff W, dated 23 March 1944. It was introduced by the Prosecution as Exhibit No. 86. The file note referred to setting up a special wage scale for the inmates.
I will ask you now, witness, who was it that issued orders for this preliminary work, was it a wage scale regulation or was it a camp statute?
A. It was both at the same time. Through the subordination of the camp factories under the WVHA it became necessary on the questions which rose there to regulate them through some sort of statute, and this was to say that it was considered here a camp statute. It would have been more correct to call it a plant regulation. On this occasion I wanted that at the same time the camp or plant statutes would develop or possibly even solve the wage scale problem for the inmates. I was of the opinion that on the premiums we could not state what premiums were ordered, only which had been introduced by me, premiums or bonus; so that this premium order could only possibly be developed into a wage order, inspite of the resistance of the Reich Finance Ministry which claimed the wages, or payment for the inmates as such, a refund for the State. I also spoke to Himmler about it, and generally speaking, he was of the same opinion as I was, because he saw that through the whole development the prerequisites could be explained, but that they had been passed by the events for a large part and that another solution had to be reached. That is why I wanted to develop this question in the form of a wage scale for inmates.
Q. In this connection I would like to ask the witness according to what principles the amount of the so-called prisoners pay was set up at various times?
A. The inmates were not paid. Therefore, you can not speak of wages for the inmates, so far as the Nazi setup. This was due to a decree which I never saw myself, but of which I only heard. There was a decree issued by the Gestapo that went back to 1933 or 1944, according to which in the Protective Custody Camps the inmates who were being used there for labor, were not to be paid and that also happened. Only in 1936, approximately, were the expenses for the concentration camps taken over by the Reich Ministry of Finance.
This Ministry made a request that all the money that resulted from the employment of inmates was to be transferred to the State. And that is what happened. As a result of that the "W" enterprises, in other words, the Economic Enterprises of the SS in the concentration camps had to pay certain amounts of money to the Reich. These amounts were rather low at the beginning, because the enterprises and their whole structure depended on capital from outside, and the Reich credit, and, it could not be recognized at the time up to what amount of money could be paid by these enterprises. However, on the other hand, that question was more or loss theoretical for the SS enterprises, because the higher profits which were reached by paying smaller amounts had to be paid to the Reich in the form of tax up to ninety percent, so that the amount paid to the inmates played no important role. In spite of that I tried, and was of the opinion that those enterprises also should gradually adopt their wages to the amounts paid by the armament industries, although that did not change very much. That is why from time these wages were increased.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, witness, these prisoners were arrested and forced to work, and were paid nothing, and their wages were collected by the Reich?
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor, that is correct.
Q. I call that slavery. What do you call it?
A. Yes, you can call it that way. I could not change it.
Q. No, do you agree that it is slavery, forced labor without pay?
A. The same conditions also prevailed in the German prisons. In other words, you have to consider everything slave labor.
Q. In German prisons men had been accused of something, and tried, and had a chance to defend themselves, and were convicted, that is true, is it not?
A. Yes, I think you are quite right.
Q. That was not true in the concentration camps?
A. That is correct.
Q. They were just picked up in the street, and thrown into a concentration without any hearing?
A. That is how the Gestapo apparently did it.
Q. That is right.
A. However, during peace-time years it was not carried out in such a way they were given a trial, or a hearing. I know the methods only the way everybody else know them.
Q. Well, do you now agree with me that the condition here described was slavery?
A. Yes, you can put it that way.
Q. Well, will you put it that way?
A. I in any case during the first years -- well, under slavery I can imagine something entirely different.
Q. Well, under slavery I can imagine something exactly the same, too.
A. For instance, I cannot imagine that committments to concentration camps were actually carried out without any reason whatever, in a way. I mean the fact that when you say "slave" I understand that there are really people, that is, where the name "slave " comes from, that there were people simply removed, or kidnapped from some place, and put to slavery that could work there. However, I am not convinced that in all the cases in which the Gestapo arrested people, and committed them to concentration camps that they were actually innocent, and, I so assume today that they had violated the laws of the country in some way.
Q. No, the law that was violated was that they belonged to the wrong race. The negro was enslaved because he was black; the Poles were enslaved because they were Jews. Do you see any difference?
A. Well, after all, not all Poles were Jews.
Q. No, I mean, the Polish Jews were enslaved, because they were Jewish?
A. Yes, well the Jews were treated in a special way by the German Reich. In other words, according to my opinion they did not come under these groups. We can only discuss the question of all of those who were not Jews, and I am still of the opinion today that many people had violated laws, at least violated police regulations which had been decreed, and had to be a decree in a occupied country in order to keep order, and peace; that is, for instance, some refused to work, and they had so violated these police regulations, therefore, they had been committed, or removed to the concentration camp.
Q Do you honestly believe that was true of all the inmates of the concentration camps?
A No, I do not wish to assert that, that is applied to all of them. I don't think that myself, but, generally speaking, yes, we sort of stuck to that, I can still remember those documents, and I knew very much from the knowledge of the times because those things did not pass from my hand, I read quite often that the arrest had taken place because of a refusal to work or because a person had left a working place, or for some similar reason, even if those decrees had been judged quite kindheartedly.
Q Did you ever hear of whole villages being picked up and bundled into trains and sent to concentration camps, men, women and children?
A I never saw that because I was not out of there. I had no opportunity.
Q Did you ever hear about it? It is never the less astonisting.
A No, I didn't that entire villages were evacuated--no I never heard of that.
Q You never heard of everybody in a church or a motion picture theatre being herded together and shipped into Germany for labor-men, women and children?
A I read that in the documents, but prior to that, I did not know.
Q You mean prior to that you never heard anything about it, until you got the documents in this case?
A Yes, I can say that with a clear conscience--that I did not know these things before.
Q Well, that may be true. It is nevertheless astonishing.
A Yes, I admit that, Your Honor, but it is the truth.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q Witness, you testified that the inmates of the concentration camps were not given pay for their work and so far were treated in the same manner as the inmates of the punitive situations of the state;
where persons did not receive any wages for their work either. I am asking you know, witness, when the Gestapo committed persons to concentration camps, according to your knowledge, did it base itself on the point of view of the labor assignments or did the Gestapo go from the point of view that only police security measures were sufficient reason for the commitment to a concentration camp? And I ask you furthermore did you ever have any meetings or discussions with the Gestapo or the RSHA in order to get as large a number of persons as possible to be committed for the purpose of the so-called slave labor into the concentration camps?
A I had no possibility to learn further of the measures of the RSHA or the Gestapo. My knowledge is based on hearsay or assumptions. However, up to this date I am of the opinion that the Gestapo, being quite kind hearted about it, which kind-hearted-ness they showed during the last years of the war, did stick to state police regulations. As I stated before I never took one single stop in any case in order to commit people to concentration camps simply to get them as labor.
Q Did not Himmler himself write you a letter one time, which was introduced by the Prosecution, to the effect that on the question of commitment of inmates into the concentration camps only state police reasons should be competent and that the impression that one should not give the people were being sent to concentration camps in order to work there?
A I can not think of the document at the present moment, but it is quite possible. I believe that I saw some sort of a document here, but I do not know where.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Just so that I shall be certain that I heard correctly, did the defendant say that the Gestapo at a certain period in their career became kind hearted? Is that what I understood the translater to say?
DR. SEIDL: I am afraid, Your Honor, that I did not understand your question because the German translation is so insufficient.
Would you repeat it?
JUDGE MUSMANNO: I understood through the translation that the defendant said that at a certain period in their career, the Gestapo became very kind hearted. Did I understand correctly?
DR. SEIDL: Neither the defendant nor I made such a statement. I believe that there must have been some sort of a mistake.
THE PRESIDENT: I think so.
THE INTERPRETER: The word, Your Honor, was "broadminded".
THE PRESIDENT: "Broadminded", not " kind hearted".
JUDGE MUSMANNO: That is still pretty astonishing.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q I shall now come to another document, Your Honor. On 20 February 1942 the Inspector of concentration Camps, who at that time was subordinated to the SS-Perational Main Office issued an order. This is Document 2167, Document Book Number 4, page 47, which is page 36 of the English Document Book, Exhibit No. 87. I am asking you witness, how was the labor assignment dealt with before this decree came out?
A From my own knowledge I do not know exactly how the labor assignment was handled in the concentration camps before 1942. Generally speaking, it was carried out in such a manner that the camp commandant assigned these inmates to such work as was to be done. I mean by that it consisted mostly of work within the camp itself. When the WVHA-that is between 1938 and 1939--took over the economic enterprises within the camps, then a special main department was opened up in the WVHA which was special Department 1-5. This special Department 1-5 was to regulate the prisoner labor assignment Berlin, mainly the labor assignment to those various enterprises. However, two or three months later, I know that after a very short time, it was discovered that it was very hard to do so. I could not possibly be done from Berlin. That is why this Department 1-5 was removed from the main office and transferred to the Inspectorate, and this Department 1-5 then, after that new regulation with which document 87 deals, dealt with labor assignments.
I believe that it was called the Plenipotentiary for labor assignments. In the camps the protective camp leader E was directly subordinated to these Plenipotentiaries for the Assignments of Labor at the Inspectorate for Concentration camps. "E" means here "Einsatz". That assignment was rather speaking the organization until 1942.
Q We come now to the document no 1994, document book 4, page 50, Page 38 of the English Book. It is Exhibit No. 88. The subject of this letter is the reassignment of commanders at the concentration camps. I am asking you witness, was the re-assignment of concentration camp commandants a part of your task, and why you propose such a re-assignment to Himmler?
A Re-assignment as such was not part of my task. It was always dealt with so far by the Inspectorate in collaboration with the Personnel Main Office. However I have already explained why I was interested in the detachment of certain concentration camp commandants from certain enterprises, and I spoke with Himmler about it, and thereupon I made a suggestion to him, as can be seen in this document. I was speaking particularly of commandant Loritz, Bielkowski and Kuenstler, and I suggested having them re-assigned. They were the oldest commandants. I tried to remove Ziereis from Mauthausen, but met with the opposition of Gauleiter. He worked together with Ziereis and supported him, and he also urged Himmler, and Himmler against my proposal, ordered that Ziereis was to remain in Mauthausen. I was in the opinion that for other reason, the re-assignment would have been the right thing to do, not only amongst the leading personnel but also in the smaller groups, in other words, of the enlisted ranks. These men had already been in the-se units for ten years or so, and I was of the impression that this long time that was spent in the same command or the same assignment or the same official position, particularly in a position like the concentration camps, could not possibly be good for the development of the character of a human being.
Himmler agreed with me in that opinion. However, he himself said that a reassignment during the war, due to the general lack of leaders, was very difficult. Here too he wanted to do this later on, he wanted to introduce the practice that every two years the men were to be reassigned for there were no volunteers.
Q In the documents introduced in Exhibit No. 90, 1545, they are speaking of a special account. This is the document found on Page 59 of the German and on Page 46 of the English document book. I am asking you, Witness, what happened with the money of that special account?
A I know nothing about it. I presume that these amounts had been gathered in the inspectorates, and I do not believe that there was much, in order to be used for the maintenance of these special buildings. I do not know anything about it though.
Q Then I come to Document NO-1554, which was introduced as Exhibit 91, Document Book IV, Page 60 of the German, Page 47 of the English document book. It refers to the guarding of prisoners. I am asking you, Witness, why were the prisoners to be shadowed, and who was it actually made this proposal? The letter is signed by Brigadefuehrer Gluecks.
A This letter refers to an inside matter of one of the camps, and Gluecks probably discussed it with one of the camp commanders, and I knew nothing about it. However, I presume that by shadowing these prisoners themselves, they tried to discover the illegal administration of the camp. I don't see any other reason for that.
Q You knew nothing about that letter; you never did anything about it, did you?
A No, neither was it known to me nor did I do anything about it.
Q I shall now come to Document NO-1506. This is Exhibit No. 93, Document Book IV, on Page 63 and on Page 50 of the English document book. This is the decree of the Amtsgruppen-Chief D of the first of August, 1942. It refers to the inspection of the concentration camps. It can be seen from this that the inspection of a concentration camp can only be carried out with the permission of the inspector.
In this connection I am asking you, Witness, what can you say with reference to the question of the inspection of the concentration camps of 13 June 1943 to which effect certain witnesses have already testified here before this Tribunal?
A I cannot say very much about that because who visited concentration camps and why they visited the camps and in what groups, I did not know in Berlin, with the exception of a very few cases, unless, of course, I participated in it myself, which occurred once in a while. However, generally speaking I don't know who visited these concentration camps.
Q This is a letter from Amtsgruppen-Chief D on the 15th of July, 1942, or rather the 15th of June, 1943, addressed to the commanders of four camps and concerns special billets in the concentration camps. It was introduced as Exhibit 94, and is on Page 51 of the English document book. It is Document 1242, Document Book IV, on Page 64 of the German, and as I said before, Page 51 of the English document book. What do you understand about special constructions here to which this letter refers?
A They meant brothels by that.
THE PRESIDENT: Meant what?
THE WITNESS: Brothels.
Q (By Dr. Seidl) I shall now come to Document NO-2180. It is on Page 68 of the German document book IV and 65 of the English document book, a letter from Amtsgruppe D on the 15th of April, 1942, and it refers to the training of prisoners, and it was addressed to the camp commanders of the concentration camps. I am asking you, witness, what training of prisoners are they talking about here?
A It was a training which Himmler had prescribed once. That is the training of stone carvers and masons and the training was riven in the concentration camp of Flossenbuerg, Mauthausen, perhaps, and some other camps.
Q I shall now refer to Document NO-1293, Prosecution's Exhibit No. 99, Document Book IV, Page 85, or Page 68 of the English document book. This is a decree of Obergruppenfuehrer Gluecks to the concentration camp commandants on the 4th of April, 1944. It refers to the screening of prisoners by the political department before transfer. What kind of a transfer are they speaking about here, and did you know this letter before the beginning of this trial?
A By transfer, they mean transfer of the prisoners from their main camp to a labor camp. During these transfer, as I just found out for the first time through this letter, it seems to have occurred that inmates who were about to be released were transferred to labor camps where they went through the "G" manufacturing. "G" stands for secret, Geheim. Such inmates could not be released during the war because they knew the secret. That was the reason why it says here in this letter, in future when transfers of inmates take place into labor camps, Department VI, the political department, was to be asked before releasing them, because that particular department knew if that inmate or inmates were to be released or not, in order to enable these people to be released.
Q My following question refers to Document NO-1551, which was introduced by the Prosecution as Exhibit 100. It is on Page 69 of the English document book IV, Page 86 of the German document book. It refers to the monthly reports about all Czech detainees in concentration camps. They are referring to a decree on the 25th of January, 1944. I am asking you, Witness, who issued this decree, and did you know the contents of this decree?
A This decree was probably released by the inspectorate or Amtsgruppe D, as it can be seen from the file. This decree did not originate with me, because it concerns a matter with reference to the internal reports between to concentration camp and inspectorate the same as that letter to the concentration camp commandants came from Amtsgruppe D and was signed by Gluecks, who simply referred to one of his former letters.