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.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A Then I only have noted down the food allowances by Kogon for April 1944 until February 1945. They amounted to the following: bread, monthly, approximately 10,400 grams; fats, 730 grams; meat, 300 grams; cereals, 1,020 grams; potatoes, 11,200 grams; and vegetables, 16,000 grams; in addition to these rations in 1942 the special ration for heavy workers was issued, which in part was rather considerable. For example, in the case of bread, that is additionally, it amounted to 5,600 grams per month. In the case of fats, it amounted to 400 grams; in the case of meat it amounted to an additional 1,120 grams. Furthermore, the prisoners, whenever they were being transferred or marching, they received 500 grams of bread, 50 grams of margarine, and 50 grams of sausage. These were the same rations which were to be issued to the soldiers whenever they were transferred from one point to another. The additional food ration for heavy workers, according to a regulation which I issued was to be issued to 90% of all prisoners. I have tried in excess of the additional food for heavy workers to improve the food altogether. That is why I have established these increased rations. The camp commanders had to submit monthly reports that these additional food rations for heavy workers had been given to 90% of the prisoners, even if the prerequisites for it had not been fulfilled. Just how much they used this opportunity, I do not know. However, that they did this had to be reported to the Inspectorate every month. There the reports were checked and I do not know if there was cause for any complaints.
Q As Exhibit 152, a letter from Amtsgruppe D of the 4th of January, 1943, was submitted. It deals with the disposal of various kinds of hair which was cut off. That is Document 3680-PS. It is in Document Book V on page 365 of the German text, page 159 of the English text. I ask you now, Witness, what do you know of this matter and what considerations may have played a part in this matter?
A I beg your pardon. What number was it?
Q It was 3680-PS in Document Book V, page 165 of the German text.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: What is the exhibit number?
DR. SEIDL: It is exhibit 152.
A Since the hair was cut off the prisoners whenever they arrived in camp, and, as far as I know, all the hair of the Gypsy women was cut off, we naturally had a large amount of hair which had accumulated. As I see from the document, this hair was turned over to the economy as raw material. I myself have never discussed the establishment of a plant for the use of these hairs, and I have never had any discussion about the matter with anybody. I do not know if such intentions existed with Amtsgruppe D. However, the matter never approached me personally.
Q I now come to several documents which are located in Document Book VI; as Exhibit 156, Document NO-1510 was presented. It is a letter from Amtsgruppe D to the camp commanders of the 12th of September, 1942, which refers to the transfer of urns of the prisoners who had died in the concentration camps. I now ask you, witness, do you know of the contents of this letter and to what extent had the Security Police and the SD a right to issue orders regarding these matters?
A I did not know of the contents of this letter. However, that authority for issuing orders, is probably appearing from the fact that by sending these ashes to the places of residence of the recipients that somehow there must have been some unrest. Therefore, this is a matter which would have given the police agencies cause to interfere. Therefore, this was to cause to concentration camps to stop sending the ashes to these home localities.
Q As Exhibit 157, Document NO-1543 was submitted. It is a letter of the Chief of Amtsgruppe D to the commanders of the concentration camps of the 21st of November 1942, with regards to the types of death notices in the camps. It is in Document Book VI, page 3 of the German text, and page 2 of the English version. This order also originated with the Reichsfuehrer SS and the Chief of the RSHA. Did you know of the contents of this letter?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A I did not know its contents. I would like to refer to the last paragraph where it is expressly stated that "the camp commanders will personally be responsible to the Reichsfuehrer-SS and to me" -that is to say, Gluecks, who wrote this letter -- for the execution of this order.
Q I now come to Document NO-1991 -
MR. ROBBINS: I think that Dr. Seidl probably inadvertently misspoke himself on the origin of this letter. I think it isn't from the Reich Leader of the SS but rather from the Chief of Department D of the WVHA, which was subordinated to the defendant Pohl. I believe that you said it was from Reich Leader SS.
DR. SEIDL: No, I have said that the letter came from Amtsgruppe D and that it refers to a letter of the Chief of the Security Police and the SD.
Q I now come to Document NO-1991 -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, will you clear up this question in our minds? Was there any connection between the Inspectorate of the concentration camps and the RSHA?
DR. SEIDL: Am I to understand the question of the Tribunal to mean that I should ask the witness a corresponding question?
THE PRESIDENT: I think probably you can answer the question yourself. We'll take your answer, if you know the answer.
DR. SEIDL: Very well, Your Honor. Through studying these files which in this trial against Oswald Pohl and the other officials of the WVHA were presented and through my knowledge of the state of affairs from other trials, I believe that I can state the following in this matter: The WVHA was one of the 12 main offices of the Reichsfuehrer SS. Another office was the RSHA. Between the RSHA and the WVHA there was no direct contact. Both main offices had completely different assignments. The WVHA occupied itself exclusively with dealing with administrative matters, while the RSHA exclusively worked on Security Police questions and, therefore, questions which brought it in Court No. II, Case No. 4.to contact with the Gestapo, questions which concerned the Gestapo, and the Criminal Police, and the questions of the Security Service (SD). The two main offices in connection with the concentration camps had a certain contact and so far as it was exclusively the duty of the RSHA to transfer and transport certain prisoners to the concentration camps and also to decide about their possible release.
The WVHA had nothing to do with all these questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The question we are asking is where did the Inspectorate belong? Was it not a part of the WVHA after the establishment of the Main Economics Office?
DR. SEIDL: The Inspectorate, first of all, was directly subordinated to Himmler. Then from 1940 to the 3rd of March, 1942, it was incorporated into the SS Leadership Main Office, the FHA. Since March 3rd, 1942 then, it became a part of the WVHA. However, it is the contention of the Defendant Pohl that even after the 3rd of March, 1942, and in spite of the organizational incorporation into the WVHA, the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps had to a very far extent the position of an independent agency and that his duties as chief of the WVHA, only referred to a very small factor in the administration of concentration camps, namely, to deal with the question of how most appropriately the prisoners of these camps could be utilized in the economy.
THE PRESIDENT: We understand your position to be, then, that after 1942 -- was it March or May?
DR. SEIDL: The 3rd of March 1942.
THE PRESIDENT: After the 3rd of March 1942 the Inspectorate was, at least on paper, a part of WVHA but actually it continued to operate independently; but it never was tied up with and affiliated with RSHA?
DR. SEIDL: It was never affiliated with the RSHA, although according to the assignments that it had to fulfill, the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps actually should have been incorporated into RSHA.
THE PRESIDENT: It had some business with RSHA; it worked with that organization but was not a part of it?
DR. SEIDL: It was not a part of it.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
DR. SEIDL: However, it is the contention of the defendant Pohl that from the documents already presented by the prosecution it will show that the RSHA, that above all the Chief of the Security Police and the SD, had much more to do with the affairs in the concentration camps than the entire WVHA, even after the 3rd of March 1942, in spite of the fact that it was not a part of the RSHA.
MR. ROBBINS: The prosecution would like to state its position on this matter in one very short sentence; and that is that after May 1942 the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps no longer existed. It becomes Amtsgruppe D of the WVHA, which was entirely subordinated to the WVHA.
THE WITNESS: Defense counsel, I should also like to make a short statement.
DR. SEIDL: May it please the Tribunal, the defendant has just pointed out that he would like to make a statement with regard to the question which has been raised by the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
THE WITNESS: I believe that I should explain the position of Department D in the WVHA even after its incorporation into the WVHA.
This was effective the 1st of May 1942 by virtue of an order of Himmler on the 2nd of March 1942. I would like to clarify the situation by making the following statement. The Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps always had, ever since its existence, without consideration of the temporary incorporation into a larger organization, no matter if this was the FHA, the Operational Main Office, or the WVHA, the character of a junction. On the one hand it went along a certain given track, and in one of the ways which came into the junctions or met with the RSHA it dealt with all matters concerning the prisoners which were mainly located in the executive field. The other order came after 1942 from the WVHA and brought the administrative and economic things and in particular the allocation of labor.. This same system applied for all times as long as the Inspectorate existed and the title Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps was never changed nor left out. Gluecks, even later on when he was chief of Amtsgruppe D, always maintained the title of the Inspector of the Concentration Camps. He was never dismissed from this official position; and I was never appointed Inspector of the Concentration Camps, that has been the clear organizations, the system.
DR. SEIDL: I now come to Document NO-1991, which is in Document Book 6 on Page 10 in both the English and the German versions. It was submitted by the prosecution as Exhibit 160; and it is a letter from the Inspector of the Concentration Camps to the commander of the camp Gross-Rosen, dated 11 November 1941.
BY DR. SEIDL:
I now ask the witness, did the contents of this letter become known to you afterwards, since the first time, when the Inspectorate had not become incorporated in the organization of the WVHA?
A. I did not know of the contents of this letter. However, in the case of this document I should like to point out in particular the stamp on the heading which shows that at the time the Inspector of the Concentration Camps was directly subordinated to the Reichsfuehrer SS.
Q. Witness, the fact which you have just pointed out is indeed very interesting for the following reason, because it is shown by other documents that in the time between 1940 and 1942 the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps was officially subordinated and incorporated into the RSHA; it was formerly incorporated into the Operational Main Office of the FHA.
This did not prevent the Inspector of the Concentration Camps from gaining title himself as being directly subordinate to the Reichsfuehrer SS. Does this document not particularly show the fact that what you have stated is correct; that the Inspector of the Concentration Camps always considered himself an independent agency, no matter into what Main Office it had been incorporated at the various times?
A. Yes, I can't explain that to myself either. I know that on the other hand -- I have seen it only from the documents here -- the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps from 1940 until 1942 was incorporated into the Operational Main Office, the FHA. However, I can also see from this document that it describes itself here as being directly subordinated to the Reichsfuehrer SS. I myself cannot explain this contrast.
MR. ROBBINS: I should like to point out to the Tribunal that this letter deals with the time which we are not interested in as far as the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps is concerned. We have not contended that on the 11th of November 1941 the Inspector was under the WVHA. As a matter of fact, the previous letter, which also dealt with concentration camps, is on the letterhead of Division D, Concentration Camps, WVHA; and it is dated 1943. This particular one which counsel is referring to is of 1941.
DR. SEIDL: I now come to Exhibit 161. In this the Chief of the Security Police and the SD are referred to. It is dated 22nd of January 1943, Document NO-1526. It refers to the decree from the Chief of Security Police and the SD of 14 January 1943.
Q. Did this come to your knowledge?
A. I cannot remember that I have ever seen this decree because it relates to the matters which were exclusively dealt with by the RSHA, and which, through the channel which I have described previously, went from the RSHA to the Inspectorate; and it was then passed on to the camps.
Q. As Exhibit 162 the prosecution has a letter of the Chief of the Amtsgruppe D of the 19th of July 1944, Document NO-1993. This is in Document Book 6 on Page 12 of the German Document Book and Page 13 of the English text. The letter refers to the execution of five prisoners. In this connection I ask you in general who alone could order the execution of a prisoner in a camp?
A. In describing the authority previously -
MR. ROBBINS: Just a moment, please. I have no objection to the witness answering this question; but I should like to point out for future questions that Dr. Seidl must have asked this same question about twenty times already and has received the same answer, that it's the RSHA. I don't see any reason to go back over the ground repeatedly.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE PHILLIPS) By whom is the document written and to whom is it addressed?
DR. SEIDL: It is a letter from Amtsgruppe D of the WVHA directed to the Commander of the Concentration Camp Gross-Rosen and its subject is the execution of five prisoners. Now, I have asked the witness who alone could order the execution of prisoners in concentration camps.
THE PRESIDENT: But, you see, we already know the answer because the witness has told us that several times before. All right, go ahead and have the witness answer it and see if we don't know the answer. Go ahead. Answer the question, Witness.
A. I have stated that in my opinion the RSHA or the Reichsfuehrer himself could make the decisions. In this document I see that Himmler made the decision.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO): Did he answer that in his opinion? Certainly he would know. It isn't a matter of opinion.
THE WITNESS: Well, I do not know it for certain, Your Honor. I can only see that from the document. I do not know how the authority was divided between Himmler and the Chief of the RSHA.
Also, I have previously stated that from the documents I have seen for the first time that flogging of male prisoners could also be approved by the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camp. I do not believe, however, that this was always the case. But I do not know exactly as I personally did not have the authority to issue disciplinary measures.
MR. ROBBINS: I may say that the Prosecution does not conceive the full weight of the witness argument, because, for instance, in this case although it says the Reichsfuehrer SS is given authorization for execution by hanging, the order was passed on and effectuated by a subordinate of this witness, namely, the Chief of the Amtsgruppe-D of the concentration camp.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, may it please the Tribunal, I believe the whole matter is rather simple. I asked the witness could he from his own knowledge answer the question who alone had the authority to order execution of the prisoners in the concentration camps, and to approve such applications. I did not ask him to argue about this document, and I did not ask him that direct, but I only wanted him to state something about this matter from his own knowledge.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
DR. SEIDL: He has stated that from his own knowledge he cannot state anything about the matter, and is unable to explain whether this was the RSHA, or Himmler personally, and that was the answer which I tried to obtain from the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the answer that you did obtain from the witness.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, I did.
THE PRESIDENT: Next question.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. I now come to Document NO-1285, which was submitted as Exhibit No. 164, and it is a letter you yourself wrote on 13 March 1943 to the Reichsfuehrer SS. It is in Document Book 6 on page 30 of the English text, on page 28 of the German text. The letter refers to the physical conditions of the prisoners, particularly, of persons who had been committed to concentration camps by the Justice Department. I now ask you what reasons caused you to address this letter to the Reichsfuehrer SS?