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?
A The description which Schiedlausky has given here agrees with the description which I gave this morning. And it states that the Reichs Defense Commissioner and Gauleiter was the same person, the Higher SS and Police Leader who belonged to his staff, and Himmler himself during these last weeks and months gave direct orders to the concentration camps. And this is what caused this extreme confusion. I consider it impossible that at this time an order could have still been issued from Amtsgruppe D - that is the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps - because in view of the powers who had already included themselves, that did not have any say whatsoever anymore - Obergruppenfuehrer Erbprinz zu Waldeck and Pyrmont, who has been mentioned here, was the Higher SS and Police Leader who was competent for Buchenwald.
Q I now come to Document NO-1544. It is a letter from the head of Amtsgruppe D of the 8 of December, 1943, for the camp commanders. It is on page 90 of the English Document Book, which is on page 104 of the German Document Book. In this document is stated literally as follows; I quote:
"It has come to my attention that above all no work is being done by the small prisoner details. The sentries stand around at the place of work, and they are hardly exorcising any care over the prisoners. A non-commissioned officer who was asked about this, answered that it was prohibited to force the prisoners to perform work. This, of course, is nonsense. Every non-commissioned officer and sentry is to keep the prisoners working."
"That it is prohibited in this respect to beat the prisoner of to hit him - is only natural. They are to be made to work by oral instructions and orders.
If the sentry does this in German or any other language - is completely unimportant. The prisoner, after all, knows what he is supposed to be doing. I therefore request that the detail commanders instruct the sentries and the non-commissioned officers of the guards as to his duties."
Witness, this is a letter of the 7th of December, 1943; it comes from the SS-WVHA, the head of Amtsgruppe D, and this letter shows very clearly that it was most strictly prohibited to the sentries to beat the prisoners, to push them around or even to touch them.
Does this order agree with the directive which you, yourself, gave to the head of Amtsgruppe D with the taking-over of the Inspectorate of concentration camps?
A In part, it corresponds to my own formulation which I had discussed previously.
DR. SEIDL: Your Honor, in this respect, I would like to state that this document, as far as I can remember, was not offered by the prosecution as an exhibit, and I believe, for the reason that this is expressly a defense document. I think that this document was include in the document book by mistake and, of course, I have used the opportunity in examining the witness to also refer to this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you reserve an exhibit number for this document, Mr. Robbins?
MR. ROBBINS: My notes show, Your Honor, that this was introduced as Exhibit 137, Prosecution Exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal's records also show that it was introduced as Exhibit 137.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: What is the page, please?
THE PRESIDENT: 90.
DR. SEIDL: It must probably have been subsequently submitted as an exhibit; at that time I did not make any notation of it. I cannot imagine why the prosecution should submit such a document in the case against the Defendant Oswald Pohl, or any other defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me that if they wanted to withhold the document, they wouldn't have had it mimeographed and they never would have let you see it. Anyway, it is in evidence now. It has an exhibit number, 137, and you can make the most of it.
MR. ROBBINS: I might state for Dr. Seidl's information that we have attempted to make an impartial selection of documents and we have not knowingly withheld any documents from the defense, whether they were favorable or unfavorable.
THE PRESIDENT: That is a new concept.
Recess until tomorrow morning at 2:30.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess until 2:30 o'clock tomorrow.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 20 May 1947, at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Oswald Pohl, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 20 May 1947, Justice Robert M. Toms presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II. Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the court.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, I should like to just take a moment to advise the defense counsel of the position which I will urge the Tribunal to assume throughout the balance of the case with reference to expediting the trial. The defendant Pohl has gone over much material dealing with the historical development, the organization, and personalities of various people, and the prosecution has, I believe, raised a minimum of objections. I assume that it will not be necessary for other defendants or witnesses to traverse this same historical development.
I should like permission to read briefly from a ruling of the International Military Tribunal in an analogous situation which will summarize the position of the prosecution. It is quite short, and by Justice Lawrence.
"Before the examination of the defendant von Ribbentrop goes on, the Tribunal desires me to draw the attention of Dr. Horn and of the defendant von Ribbentrop to what the Tribunal has said during the last few days. In the first place the Tribunal has said this: The Tribunal has allowed the defendant Goering, who has given the evidence first of the defendants, and who has proclaimed himself to be responsible as the second leader of Nazi Germany, to give his evidence without any interruption whatever, and he has covered the whole history of the Nazi regime from its inception to the defeat of Germany. The Tribunal does not propose to allow any of the other defendants to go over the same ground in their evidence except insofar as is necessary for their own defense.
Secondly, the Tribunal ruled that evidence as to the injustice of the Versailles Treaty, or whether it was made under duress, is inadmissible. Thirdly, though this isn't in order of the Tribunal, I must point out that the Tribunal has been informed on many occasions of the view of the defendants and some of their witnesses that the Treaty of Versailles was unjust, and therefore any evidence upon that point, apart from its being inadmissible, is cumulative, and the Tribunal will not hear it therefore for that reason. And lastly, the Tribunal wishes me to point out to Dr. Horn that it is the duty of counsel to examine the witnesses and not to leave them simply to make speeches, and if they are giving evidence which counsel knows is inadmissible according to the ruling of the Tribunal, it is the duty of counsel to stop the witness."
That is the end of the quotation. Since the defendant Pohl is still on the stand, this point is still academic. I only wanted to advise the defense of our position.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal assumes that cross-examination by other counsel will be confined to matters which affect their individual clients only, and that it will not be a general survey, such as this witness has given, of the whole situation in WVHA.
OSWALD POHL - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. Witness, I now come to Exhibit 139. It is Document 3678-PS. It is in Document Book V on page 112 of the English text, page 104. This document occupies itself with flogging for female prisoners. In this connection I would like to ask you what regulations applied with regard to punishment for prisoners and what directives had been issued by Himmler, and further by the RSHA and other agencies who were competent in these matters?
A. As far as I am informed, the regulations about the authority of the camp commanders in regard to punishment were laid down in the "camp regulations". According to this the camp commander had a certain disciplinary authority over the prisoners.
He could impose disciplinary punishments and he could put prisoners into confinement up to twentyone days. All punishments which exceeded this measure had to be applied for through the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps with the RSHA. This, too, included flogging and the death punishment. If the RSHA by virtue of its own authority could decide on these punishments I do not know exactly. However, I only know for certain that Himmler decided on flogging. From this I conclude that he also dealt with requests for the death penalty. I have seen from the documents that the decision about flogging for male prisoners was carried out by the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps. However, I do not believe that this was the case at all times.
I believe that later this decision was turned over to the Inspectorate by Himmler. The requests for floggings of female prisoners, in any case up to the very end, were personally decided over by Himmler.
Q. I now come to Document NO-1556. It is in Document Book 5, page 122 of the German text and 110 of the English version. It was submitted as Exhibit 140. It is a letter from Obersturmbannfuehrer Maurer, from Amtsgruppe D to the camp commanders. It is dated the 11th of April, 1944, and it deals with cases of sabotage of prisoners in "R plants".
What is meant here by "R plants" and who requested execution in such cases?
A. Well, "R plants" are armament plants, and I have already said that, with regard to the requests for executions, either the RSHA or Himmler personally had to decide. However, it is my opinion that Himmler was the person who made the decision. I, myself, as chief of the WVHA, did not have this authority.
Q. I now come to Document NO-2166. It was presented by the Prosecution as Exhibit 142, and it is in Document Book 5, on page 128 in the German text and on page 117 in the English version.
It is a letter from the Inspector of the concentration camps to the camp commanders, of the 26th of February, 1942. The letter refers to the working and feeding of prisoners and their reimbursement.
Did you have anything to do with labor allocation at that time?
A. No. This document only deals with a matter of forms that is, by virtue of a regulation which had been published in the army gazette of regulations. The abbreviation which has been listed here on the second line -- "FN" -- is "Forderungsnachweis," which means proof of the demand; and the whole matter only refers to a matter of formality. And this form has been announced here through the regulations.
Q. The Prosecution has submitted a letter from the Reich Minister of Food and Agriculture dated 7 April 1942, as Exhibit 144. This is Document NO-2132. It is in Document Book 5, on page 123 of the English version and on page 135 in the German document book. This document refers to the food rations, and you have testified before that these rations were such that the Reich Minister for Food and Agriculture.
.. I now ask you: Did the WVHA occupy itself with this matter, and were negotiations carried out about this matter with the Minister of Food and Agriculture?
A. Neither the WVHA nor the other administrative agencies were consulted in the setting of food rations by the Reich Ministry for Food. I have already stated that the Reich Ministry for Food in setting ration allowances acted according to the general food situation in the Reich.
Q. In this connection there is a file note. That is, of the Food Office of Bavaria, dated in April, 1944. It was submitted by the Prosecution as Exhibit 145. That is Document 311-PS, Document Book 5, page 139 of the German text and page 127 of the English version.
In this connection I ask you, as far as you can remember, what were the ration allowances for the prisoners, and in what cases was additional food given out. In answering this question I ask you to consider the affidavit given by the former commander of Neungamme, which was submitted as Exhibit 146.
A. On the basis of the documents which have been mentioned, I have reached the following conclusion about the ration allowances for prisoners, or as are shown by the letter from the Bavarian Food Office for Prisoners of War in Armament Industries. Also, on the basis of the affidavit by the camp commander of Neuengamme, Pauli. As far as figures are mentioned at all in these documents, the following ration allowances can be seen.
For prisoners in 1942: Bread, 14,000 grams -- these are monthly ration allowances. Fat, 680 grams; meat, 1,120 grams; potatoes 20,000 grams and vegetables, 15,000 grams. The prisoners of war in armament industries in 1943 received 9,700 grams of bread; 1,000 grams of meat; and 600 grams of additional food --
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Is he testifying about Exhibit 145 or Exhibit 146..? Is the witness testifying about Exhibit 145 or Exhibit 146 -- or both?
DR. SEIDL: I have asked him about both documents, Your Honor.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Well, do not both documents speak for themselves? You ask him about his personal knowledge as to what the ration allowance was. He is reading from the documents offered by the Prosecution; we already have that.
DR. SEIDL: I have asked him to look at the two documents and asked him to state his point of view with regard to them, and also to state from memory just what the ration allowances were as far as he knows this on the basis of these documents and from his own memory.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Suppose you let him testify as to what he knows about. We know what is in the documents. He doesn't have to testify to that. That is just a waste of time.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. Witness, I have asked you for the food allowances, and I have asked you to tell us from memory whatever you can tell us about this. Of course, you have to consider the two exhibits, 145 and 146. I now ask you to tell the Tribunal: Who made up these ration allowances about which you have just talked?
A. The ration allowances which I mentioned just now come from the documents which have been presented. In addition to this, I have looked at the ration allowances as stated by Kogon, and I have made a comparison between the two in order to make a comparison of the development of the food ration through the years. And then I have figured out the monthly food allowances. And that is how I reached these figures.
For the year 1944, then, the following food ration allowances apply. Bread, 9,000 grams; fat, 600 grams; meat, also 600 grams; potatoes, 15,000 grams; and vegetables, 12,000 grams -
MR. ROBBINS: Excuse me. May I ask where the witness is reading from?
WITNESS: I have made these notes from the documents.
MR. ROBBINS: It seems to me that if the witness is testifying from his own recollection as to what the inmates received -- that is perfectly proper. But if he us just adding up figures derived from the documents -- that is something for his attorney to do, and not the proper basis for testimony.
THE PRESIDENT: We can make our own computation from the documents. There is no need for the witness taking the Court's time to read the document to us.
WITNESS: Then, therefore, I can not state either the food allowances by Kogon -
DR. SEIDL: The witness has raised the question if in the course of his testimony, in order to refresh his memory, he will be able to refer to food allowances which are contained in the book of Dr. Kogon, who has been heard here as a witness for the Prosecution. Of course, the decisive factor will be that he, from his own memory, will make statements about the food ration allowances, and that he only has used the book by Kogon on the Prosecution documents as a means to refresh his memory.
THE PRESIDENT: That is perfectly proper. He can testify from his memory, and he can refresh it from any source that he wishes. But do not have him simply read a document that we already have before us.
DR. SEIDL: Very well, Your Honor.