Q With Exhibit 101 the Prosecution introduced a teletype which refers to the assignment of Hungarian Jews, Document No. 592, Document Book IV, Page 88. It is on Page 71 of the English text book. I am asking you, Witness, when was that teletype sent off, and who was it that ordered the assignment of Hungarian Jews?
A When the teletype was sent I could not tell because no date can be seen on this document. The employment of the Hungarian Jews had been ordered by Himmler even before. I know that a large number of them had been transferred or went to the organization Todt, T-o-d-t. Those were female Hungarian Jews. That is why this request came through.
Q I shall now come to Exhibit No. 102, Document No 1967. It is on Page 73 of the English document book and on Page 89 of the German document book. It is from the 10th of December, 1941, in other words, from a time during which the inspectorate of the concentration camps had not been incorporated into the WVHA. It is a letter from the inspectorate to the commandant, and refers to information in respect to protective custody occurrences. I am asking you, did you know the contents of this letter before the beginning of this trial?
A No, this document originated at a time when I had nothing to do with concentration camps.
Q Now, coming to Document NO-681, which is on Page 76 of the English document book and on Page 90 of the German document book IV, here introduced as Exhibit 103. It is on an order of the ReichsfuehrerSS, for the suppression of bandit activity and is dated June 23, 1942. In the distribution list at the end of the document the WVHA is not mentioned, as a distributee. I am asking you, did you or the WVHA have anything to do with the entire matter?
A This was something of a military matter with which neither I personally nor the WVHA had anything to do, and I knew noticing about it.
THE PRESIDENT: We will be in recess.
THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal is in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: All persons in the court will find seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
Q I turn to Document NO-1017. It is in Document Book 4, page 95 of the German text, page 81, of the English text. It was offered as Exhibit 104. It is a letter of the Chief of Amtsgruppe D to the commander of the concentration camps, of the 1st of August 1942, and it shows the transfer of Soviet Russian civilian workers to concentration camps and now I want to read, the last paragraph and I quote: "Since the Soviet Russian civilian workers are assigned through the offices of the State Police only, all correspondence regarding these prisoners has to go exclusively through the assigning (district) offices of the State Police." I now ask you, Witness, did the administration of the WVHA have anything to do with this matter, and were you yourself informed of this matter?
A I have only seen this letter here and I have only seen it here in these documents. The WVHA had nothing to do with the commitment of prisoners in this case.
Q The next document which was presented by the prosecution is Document NO-2131. It was Exhibit 105. It is contained in Document Book IV, on page 96 of the German text and on page 83 of the English version. It is the decree of the Chief of the Security Police and the SD of the 23d of March 1043, which refers to the increased commitment of prisoners into the concentration camps. This decree was sent to all the commander etc., of the Security Police and the SD, while an information copy only was given to the Chief of the WVHA. What was the result of this order?
A From this information copy it becomes clearly evident that the WVHA did not participate in this execution, but it only received this decree for its information.
Q This document, or information copy in this document was not only sent to the WVHA, but it was sent directly to the Amtsgruppe-D. What does the fact show with regard to the working methods of the Amtsgruppe-D?
A The way from the RSHA to the camps was direct through the Amtsgruppe-D, and of any happenings which were sent to me for purposes of information I furthermore received an information as in this case. In other cases, however, the channel went from the RSHA directly to all the Inspectorates of the camps.
Q Exhibit No. 106, the Prosecution has offered, is a copy of an interrogation of a Dr. Rasch of 16 June 1943. It is Document NO-1073. It is on page 101 of the German Document Book. It is on page 86 in the English Document Book. Do you know this Dr. Rasch, and what statement could you make about it?
A I don't know Dr. Rasch at all, and I have no knowledge of the incident which he describes in his interrogation.
THE COURT: It is not Exhibit 101. It is 106.
DR. SEIDL: It is Exhibit No. 106.
THE PRESIDENT: On page 101.
DR. SEIDL: 101, in the German Document Book, and page 86 in the English Document Book.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q As Exhibit No. 107, the Prosecution has presented a memorandum about the capture and the arrest of Jews in France. It is Document NO-1411. It is on page 112 of the German Document Book and on page 90 of the English version.
It is Exhibit No. 107. Were the contents of this memorandum known to you and did this letter have anything to do with the activities of the WVHA?
A I have only seen the document here for the first time. It has nothing to do with the activity of the WVHA.
Q I now come to Document NO-1547. It is on page 118 of the German Document Book, and on page 97 of the English Document Book No. 4. Amtsgruppe-D on 3 January 1944 sent a letter to the concentration camp commandants about the new commitment of prisoners into the camps. The Document is presented as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 108. Does the contents of this letter agree with the general directives issued by you to Amtsgruppe-D?
A I did not deal with this letter directly. It originated from Amtsgruppe-D. However, it entirely agrees with my concepts and the directives which I gave to Amtsgruppe-D.
Q I now come to Document 1558. It is in Document Book 4; it is on page 119 of the German Document Book, and on page 98 of the English version. It was offered as Exhibit 109, and it is a letter from Gruppenfuehrer Gluecks to the concentration camp commandants on 9 May 1944. The original referred to a decree of Chief of the Security Police and the SD. I now ask you, witness, what does the document show with regard to the position of the RSHA in the system of concentration camps?
A I have already pointed out that all directives concerning prisoners that were committed into concentration canps or transferred and so on, were exclusively dealt with and these orders were issued by the RSHA, which is again proven by this document.
Q Now I come to Document NO-2074, which is in Document Book 4, on page 120 of the German text, and page 99 of the English text.
It was presented as Exhibit 110. It is a letter of the Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories, 10 May 1944. What caused the administration of the Reich Minister for the Eastern Occupied Territories to compose this letter, and what attitude did you yourself maintain with regard to this matter?
A This is apparently the transfer of Jews from the ghetto's of the Eastern Territories, that is, outside of the General Government into concentration camps. These Jews who up to that time had been living in the ghetto's were under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Eastern Occupied Territories, which also directed the labor allocation, and which used the profits accrued out of the work of these Jews for its own budget. With the transfer of the Jews into the concentration camps this source of income was lost for the Reich Ministry of Eastern Occupied Territories, because the renumeration for all the work in the concentration camps was transferred to the Reich by the concentration camp administration. The Reich Ministry for Occupied Eastern Territories objects against this danger in this letter. I myself do not know whether the transfer of Jews into the concentration camps of the Ostland actually took place, because the Higher SS and Police Leaders were responsible for that task. From the Reich Minister for the Eastern Occupied Territories, I did not hear anything further about this matter. He once more turned to the Reich Ministry of Finance in the letter, but I can not recall any action that was taken at all in this matter. From this I must conclude that the transfer to the concentration camps probably was never carried out.
Q I now come to Document NO-383. It was presented by the Prosecution as Exhibit 112. It is in Document Book No. 4, page 129 in the German text, and on page 106 in the English version.
This is a letter from the commandant of the Security Police and the SD, within the area of the Military Commandant in France, and is addressed to the administration of the concentration camp at Flossenburg. Did this letter come to your knowledge, or what can you yourself say in this connection?
A No, the letter only came to my knowledge here, and I was astonished to see, for the first time, from this letter to what extent the measures of the members of the Security Police went with regard to the concentration camps.
Here I saw that even extensive orders in the field of administration were channelled through the RSHA. We have orders concerning the legacy from prisoners, and, even orders concerning the use of clothing which was left behind, and also about the use of valuables, and other personal items. This is the first time that I had seen such extensive measures of the RSHA in that document. The document is a very clear example to show how far the RSHA has extended its authority with regard to concentration camp matters.
THE PRESIDENT: To whom is that letter addressed to?
A That letter was addressed to concentration camp Flossenburg directly. It was directly addressed to the concentration camp at Flossenburg.
Q Well, who is that? Who was the head of the administration of the concentration camp at Flossenburg?
A To the administrative leader of the concentration camp even. It was not even addressed to the commandant.
Q What was his name? Who was in charge of Flossenburg?
A I don't know that, Your Honor.
Q That was after you were given charge of all concentration camps, wasn't it, in June 1944?
A Yes.
Q But the letter never came to you?
A No. I only saw the letter here for the first time, and I would have known of it if I had received it, because it contained a rather unusual thing.
Q Well, you seem to have never heard about the unusual things that happened in the concentration camps, even though you were the head of the system.
A In accordance with my assignment, I personally occupied myself only with the labor allocation of prisoners because the entire enormous organization of the concentration camps could not be dealt with by me alone at all. After all, we had an Inspectorate for this purpose, and I have also pointed out in receiving the order from Himmler that I, as Chief of one of the biggest Main Office was already so overburdened with work that I could not administer 13 other concentration camps with 500 labor camps on the side.
Q In that important position, you only heard about the unimportant and trivial things, not the important one.
A Well, I could not change that. I heard whatever information was passed on to me. I did not have any knowledge at all of such matters.
Q When it came to such things as compulsory labor and confiscation of personal property and extermination, you never heard about those; you just heard about the little things.
A Well, I can state only the facts, Mr. President. I did not receive any knowledge of these things.
Q That is all I want to hear from you in the facts. Do I state a fact when I say that?
A That is a fact. For example, I did not see this letter either.
Q All right. Another question: You spoke of the Higher SS and Police Leaders. You have used that phrase several times. Who were they, the Higher SS and Police Leaders?
A The Higher SS and Police Leaders were the representatives of Himmler in their respective fields. I have already discussed this on Friday. I have described their activities within the Reich and in the Occupied Territories.
Q In the field of concentration camps, weren't you a Higher SS official?
A My position can not be compared with that of a Higher SS and Police Leader.
Q What rank did you hold?
A I was Obergruppenfuehrer, and the Higher SS and Police Leaders also had the same rank, but our official duties and official positions differed fundamentally. The Higher SS and Police Leaders were active in their respective fields of competence, and they had the rank of -something like the rank of a commanding general. I was an administrative chief in the Reich administration of the SS.
Q What is the corresponding rank of an Obergruppenfuehrer? What is the corresponding military rank?
A General. The rank does not make any difference here. The difference lies in the field of their respective activities. The Higher SS and Police Leader had a military authority, and I as administrative chief did not have any military authority, and, in order to complete the comparison, we may also the Reich Physician. He was a physician. These are completely different.
Q Well, in the administrative field, leaving out the military field, in the administrative field, you were a Higher SS official weren't you, Obergruppenfuehrer - a general?
A Yes, of course I was a high SS leader, but this has nothing to do with the title Higher SS and Police Leader. The title Higher SS and Police Leader was title of an agency. In the Army one could call this person an army corps area commander, and the Higher SS and Police Leader held approximately the same position. No comparison can be made. They had completely different activities. This is not an anonymous title, but a title for a very precisely defined task and position. The Higher SS and Police Leader in the General Governmentfor example that was, if I can clarify this matter--he was Police Minister of the General Governor. That is something completely different from the administrative chief. That is exactly the same as it was in The Reich.
Q I understand that it was different, that the administrative head was different from the military head, but they were both high, were they not?
A Of course. They had the same rank. However, they also had that also in the Army. There was no difference there either.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q If I understood you correctly, you want to say that the title Higher SS and Police Leader is a technical title, that it has a certain meaning and with a well defined authority? In a certain territory and certain military units.
A Yes, that is the way it was.
Q Until 3 March 1943 you were chief of the WVHA and you had to fulfill your task as the army administrative office, who had to handle in the high command of the army questions of supply, clothing, billeting, and payment of the troops. After 3 March 1943, the Inspectorate was incorporated. I now ask you how many hours during the week did your activities in connection with the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps take up?
A During the week I would have one discussion with Obergruppenfuehrer Glucks. He came regularly on Friday afternoon to Berlin, and then we discussed the labor allocation questions, and this usually lasted half an hour, sometimes an hour. That was all the activity which I even had time for in these tasks. On the other days I would not even see him at all.
Q And this also explains the fact that you were uninformed about many things which now can be considered as evidence, that you heard of these things only in the course of your interrogations and during this trial?
A Yes, that is correct. I did not find out about these things, not because I was too lazy or because I did not want to spend any time on it, but because as a result of the regulations and of the secrecy regulations, this information never reached me. The matters from the Higher SS and Himmler went directly to the agencies that had to deal with them.
Therefore, it can not be that I took my task too easily or that I did not care enough for it, but just that information did not reach me, and thus in the documents I saw many, many things of which I had no previous knowledge.
Q Is this also connected with the fact that after 3 March 1942 the position of the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps was independent and can not be compared with the position of the other Amtsgruppe which already were a part of the WVHA?
A These Amtsgruppen can not even be compared with each others. Amtsgruppen A, B and C of the WVHA at Berlin had completely different tasks. While Amtsgruppe D at Oranienburg as an Inspectorate had a special task, with special personnel also, there was no administrative personnel at Orannienburg.
Q I now come to Document NO 399. It is a letter from Sturmbannfuehrer Burger to the Chief of Amtsgruppe B of 15 August 1944. It is in Document Book 4, Page 131 in the German, Page 108 in the English text. It is Exhibit 113. I ask you, witness, do you know the contents of this letter and did you, know the contents of this letter during your time in office?
A No. It is almost the same letter which was discussed this morning. It is apparently a matter which on the basis of a telephone call was passed on to Amtsgruppe B. This letter dealt with clothing and it did not concern me at all.
Q I now come to Document NO 1538. It is in Document Book 4, page 133 of the German text, page 111 of the English. It refers to an order by the RSHA of 6 October 1943. I want to point out in particular the distribution list of this document. Did you obtain any knowledge of it?
A. No, I did not obtain any knowledge of this decree at that time. It was not even addressed to me, and an information copy was again directly sent to Amtsgruppe D at Oranienburg.
Q. You mean the remark under Paragraph II (f) where it states information copy to Amtsgruppe D of the WVHA at Oranienburg, to the concentration camp at Oranienburg?
A. Yes.
Q. In any case you did not see this decree and Gluecks did not submit this decree to you?
A. No, I did not see this decree.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: What was the number of the exhibit, please?
DR. SEIDL: Your Honor, this is Document NO-1538. However, I am not sure the Prosecution has submitted this document as an exhibit. In any case, in my document book it is contained under this number.
THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit number?
JUDGE SPEIGHT: 115.
THE PRESIDENT: It is 115.
Q. (By Dr. Seidl) The next document which was presented by the Prosecution is Document No. 1234. It is on Page 136 of the German text in Document Book IV, and on page 114 of the English document book. It is Exhibit 116. It is a letter of Amtsgruppe D of the 28th of October, 1944 and it refers to the employment of the clergymen who were at Dachau. Who ordered this measure, and did it come to your knowledge?
A. This measure, as I can see from the document, was issued by the RSHA, because this matter dealt with the prisoners. It was directly addressed to the inspectorate by the RSHA, which in turn passed it on to the camp commanders.
In all these matters which were outside of the labor allocation question, I wasn't even touched by the questions. I must repeat that this was not accidental, but that was the prescribed channel of command which was adhered to, because all matters pertaining to prisoners in these fields did not come at all within my sphere of work.
Q. I now come to Document NO-568. It was offered as Exhibit 117. It is on Page 137 of the German Document Book IV, and it is on Page 116 of the English document book. It is a document which refers to the payment of prisoners within a certain labor detachment. What was your attitude in questions of this kind in general?
A. I have already described this before, or even twice already. The reimbursement of prisoners was the same thing everywhere, the attempts of the business managers of the individual enterprises. In this case we are dealing with a German experimental station for food, which was also an SS enterprise. They tried to keep the reimbursement of prisoners as low as possible, because they thought they could draw special profits from this, and they did not know that these profits were taken away anyhow by taxation. It itself it is a little insignificant matter. This belonged to the German experimental station for food, and as I can see from this document they set uniformly reimbursement for other prisoners that worked there at fifty phennings. Of course, Amtsgruppe D opposes this and increases their reimbursement.
Q. I now come to Document No. 1238 in Document Book V. It is on page 1 in the English and German document books. It was offered as Exhibit 119. It is a letter from the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps to the Camp Commanders of the 23rd of October, 1941. This is Document NO-1239. It refers to written reports about Soviet prisoners of war.
I now ask you, what did the WVHA, have to do with this matter?
A. The letter itself is dated the 23rd of October, 1941. At that time the Inspectorate was not even a part of the WVHA, and consequently we did not have anything to do with it.
Q. As Exhibit 120 there is a special delivery letter from the Chief of Security Police and the SD which was presented, and which refers to the transportation of Russian prisoners of war. It is Document NO-2138. It is in Document Book V, Page 8 of both the English and the German Texts. I now ask you, did you obtain knowledge of the contents of this special delivery letter?
A. No, if did not come to my knowledge. Here it is again stated on the last page of the document, in the last par graph, that the Inspector of the Concentration Camps has been notified accordingly. Therefore, the Chief of the Security Police and SD again notified the Inspectorat directly.
Q. As Prosecution Exhibit 121, Document NO-2318 was presented. It is in Document Book V, on Page 13 of the German text and Page 11 of the English text. It deals with the supervision of outside agencies, of outside camps. It was signed by you personally. I now ask you, what caused yon to write this letter?
A. I did not deal with this personally, but I think that Amtsgruppe D dealt with this letter. As far as I can recall, the reason for this was a rather extensive theft by some of the troops at many camps where prisoners were working. This was caused by negligence of the supervisors. As to this letter it is again to be pointed out that the heads of the field agencies were to personally take care of such matters so that such incidents could be avoided.
Q. I now come to Document NO-1932 which was presented as Exhibit 124. It is in Document Book V, Page 39. It is Page 17 in the English document book. It is an investigation report of the Supreme headquarters of the Allied Expeditionary Forces. Part of this investigation report consists of testimony of a certain Willi Feiler. He also mentions you, and he says among other things in Paragraph 6, "The order for these executions originated, no doubt, with Reichsfuehrer Himmler and any subordinate persons who were responsible. They were General Lieutenant of the SS Pohl who transmitted the order, the commander of the concentration comps Obersturmbannfuehrer Keindl, the commander of the concentration camp Sachsenhausen." I now ask you, Witness, do you know anything about this matter to which this testimony refers?
A. I do hot know anything about the murder of sixty to eighty American and British prisoners of war, nor do I know anything about the murder of 28,000 Russian prisoners of war. I have never been used by Himmler in order to pass on an order from Berlin to Oranienburg to Obersturmbannfuehrer. As I can see from the document, whe whole matter took place at the Gestapo offices at Prinzbrechtstrasse, and from this I must deduct, I do not know, but I believe that this order was probably issued by order of Himmler. I do not know anything about the matter, and I have heard of it for the first time in this document.
Q. The next document which I ask you to look at is Document 3677-PS. It was Prosecution Exhibit 128 in Document Book V, and is on Page 67 of the German text, and it is on page 52 of the English version. It is a a letter of SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Maurer from the Inspectorate of the concentration camps to the camp commanders of 5 October 1942.
Did the Reichsfuehrer discuss this matter with you previously?
A. No, I did not discuss this matter with the Reichsfuehrer. I do not believe, however, that any representative of the inspectorate was given this order by the Reichsfuehrer. It rather appears to me as if this was also an order of the RSHA.
Q. I now come to Document NO-1938, Document Book V, and it is page 71 of the German, on page 53 of the English Document Book. It was presented as Exhibit 139, 129.
THE PRESIDENT: 129. What is the document number.
DR. SEIDL: It is document number - one moment, Mr. President. It is document 1938, Document NO-1938. I made a mistake in the identification. It is document number 2100, and it was presented as Exhibit 130. It is a letter from Obersturmbannfuehrer Maurer to the commander of the concentration camp Buchenwald, and it is dated the 7th of December, 1942. I now ask you, did this matter come to your knowledge, and in answering this question I also ask you to consider the next document.
A. I do not know anything at all about this procedure.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 129 is Document 1935 - not 1938.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, Mr. President, I see that I have made a mistake.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q I now come to Document NO-1938, it is Exhibit 131. It is in Document Book 5; on page 56 of the English text. It is a teletype from the commander of the Security Police at Paris to the commander of the Buchenwald concentration camp, of the 17th of September 1943. It refers to the Action Meerschaum. And I now ask you: Do you know anything about this Action?
A I have heard the title of the Action Meerschaum for the first time in this document.
Q You can not say anything with regard to this matter?
A No, I can not say anything.
Q I now come to Document NO-1561. It is Exhibit 133; it is in Document Book 5, on page 74 of the German version, on page 60 of the English text. It deals with the transfer of Nacht und Nobel prisoners (Night and Fog) of Germanic descent to the concentration camp Natzweiler.
I now ask you, when did the Nacht und Nobel decree first come to your knowledge, and when did you hear about the matter to which this letter refers?
A I did not have any knowledge at that time of the Night and Fog Decree. The Nacht und Nobel laws I heard of in the document.
Q I now turn to Document NO-508. It was presented as Exhibit 135. It is on page 80 of the German Document Book 5; it is on page 63 of the English text. It is an affidavit of Dr. Schiedlavsky. What do you have to say with regard to the statements made in this affidavit?
MR. ROBBINS: I think that question is much too broad. If he has some question about a specific statement in the affidavit - it is perfectly all right.
But just to ask about the affidavit in general seems to no too broad.
DR. SEIDL: I certainly can put this question more precisely. However, I do not think that this will serve to speed up the proceedings.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q On page 15 of the German text it is stated - I do not unfortunately know the page of the English text - it is page 72 of the English text - I quote:
"Around the time of the 20th of March, the chief of the WVHA, SS Gruppenfuehrer Pohl, together with the Chief of D-3, SS-Standartenfuehrer D. Lolling received the Fuehrer representative of Amt D, SS-Gruppenhuehrer Hoess, to visit at Buchenwald, which dealt with the question of having additional prisoners brought into the camp, as well as the condition of sick and invalids and prisoners who could not be used full time for work. Their ability and working and so on..."
Can't you remember this visit, witness? And what can you say to the statements which were made in this affidavit?
AAbout the middle of March, 1945, I was again at Buchenwald. That was in order to execute an order by Himmler around the beginning of March 1945. Himmler ordered me to go as quickly aS possible to the camp commanders which could still be reached, and to tell them that effective immediately all the Jews who were still living in the camps were to be treated as good as possible. At that time I had the impression that he began to carry on a firm policy all his own, and this he apparently wanted to use the Jews. This appeared so important to him that he, himself, used my argument that after all, since it was March 1945, I was very much occupied and that I had other work to do in Berlin.
.. than to become a mailman here. But this question was of such outstanding importance to him that I actually had to take this trip. And, therefore, as late as March, 1945, I went from Berlin to Neuengamme; Sachsenhausen and Ravensbrueck were done by Gluecks who was ordered to see Himmler at the same time. I went to Neuengamme, Buchenwald, Mauthausen, and Dachau. I believe Bergen-Belsen and Mauthausen, also. And that is this visit which has been referred to here - but neither Lolling nor Hoess were along with me. At that time I was accompanied only by my ordnance officers. It is possible that Hoess and Lolling may have been there a short time afterwards - or before - but apparently this has been mixed up here. I had to pass on this oral order of Himmler to the camp commandants, and in view of the situation I went from one camp to the next as fast as I could, and I was unable to stay at Buchenwald for any length of time.
"This evacuation was executed on orders of the highest authorities, because of security and feeding problems of the civilians. The Gauleiter of Thuringen, Sauckel, the Reich Defense Commissioner, and the competent Higher SS and Police Officer for the Region, SS Obergruppenfuehrer Erbprinz zu Waldeck and Pyrmont had agreed to this. A telephone or radio message came, I presume from Berlin, on the evening of the 6th of April, whether from the Reichsfuehrer SS directly or from Amtsgruppe D, I don't know, directing that as many prisoners be evacuated as possible."
I now ask you, witness, does this testimony by Dr. Schiedlausky done in connection with your own testimony which was to the effect that in the case of the approach of the enemy, the authority over these camps was transferred to the Higher SS and Police Leaders? I further ask you, who was the Ober gruppenfuehrer Erbprinz zu Waldeck and Pyrmont?