A No. This construction inspectorate had nothing to do with the inspection of the concentration camp, your Honor. We are now speaking of the construction organizations. In other words through Amtsgruppe C doubtless--the construction department--there were the following instances: Amtsgruppe C Construction Inspectorate, Central Planning Office and Planning Office and Amtsgruppe C during the war transferred its competency to the construction inspectorate because during the war only certain emergency constructions were being carried out. The Amtsgruppe C limited itself to the accounts of the yearly contingents for the entire construction of the Reich and also in repairing various buildings and other ministerial tasks. Therefore, I only heard once that the plans for the crematoriums of the extermination chambers were not to come from the SS construction units. I understand they came from Bouhler's Agency but I do not know for sure.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, answer this question please. Do you know who built the crematoria at Auschwitz?
A The crematory in Auschwitz were undoubtedly built by the construction department in Auschwitz.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you know who enlarged the crematoria at Auschwitz?
A Your Honor, the planning or do you mean the construction?
THE PRESIDENT: Both.
A That must have gone through the construction department at Auschwitz. I know nothing further.
THE PRESIDENT: Construction department of what?
A Construction department Auschwitz was under the office of the Construction Inspectorate of Posen it was in the Ministry of Amtsgruppe C.
THE PRESIDENT: Sure. Well, it was done by some branch of the SS, was it not?
A Yes, that's correct, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I guess that's as near as we can get to it.
DR. SEIDL: Then I shall proceed to Document No-2332 which was presented by the Prosecution as Prosecution Exhibit 519. It's an affidavit of Dr. Schiedlavsky, Dr. Gerhard Schiedlavski to be exact, on page 38 of the English Document Book No. 21 and in connection with this affidavit I should like to ask you witness, the basic orders for the camp physicians, were they were issued by you and Gruppenfuehrer Gluekcs on one hand and the Reich Physician SS Grawitz on the other hand and were discussed by your and how often was it Dr. Lolling came to see you who was in charge of the concentration camp physicians?
A The medical questions for the camp were discussed only by Lolling and the Reich Physician SS personally never participated in any councils nor do I believe Grawitz participated in one of them because only medical questions were discussed. Lolling himself came to see me once a month.
Q Then I shall proceed to my last question and this question refers to Document No-2510 which was introduced by the prosecution as 512. That is document book No. 21 on page 12 of the English and page 9 of the German document Book No. 21. This is an order of Hitler's of 2 August 1942 and for special authority about the coordination of the Waffen-SS, the Army, the OT or the Organization Todt upon Hitler's order, I ask you now witness, what's the connection between this Fuehrer Order of 2 August 1944 and what was the reason for the fact that you were assigned this task?
A This dealt with the reform which concerned the administration of certain Wehrmacht units which reforms had been replenished by the situation of the war, due to the administrative body of the army which was running parallel to the navy and the Luftwaffe, the Waffen-SS, the OT, Organization Todt certain conditions resulted which were seen by the fact that everyone of these administrative bodies only worked for himself. On one hand, for instance, so far as textiles were concerned they gathered large stocks while other administrative bodies had a definite lack of these items. For instance, clothing, but there are other reasons also. As we of the Waffen-SS got together--the Wehrmacht units had different administrative principles than we had and during the building-up of the entire administration stuck to the simplest rules.
As I already mentioned earlier, during the first few days of my assignment, I was assigned to carry out these reforms in order to build up the principles of the Waffen-SS and all this work, however was no longer completed due to the development of the war.
DR. SEIDL: Your Honor, the answer of this question is the end of my direct examination of the defendant Oswald Pohl. I would like to avail myself of this opportunity to ask the Tribunal to give us a decision on procedure which as something to do with the future proceedings of this case. The matter if the following: that the Tribunal has granted a certain number of witnesses for the defendant Oswald Pohl. I already spoke of a large number of these witnesses and it will not be necessary to examine many witnesses before this trial. I believe that two or three would be sufficient and I am also convinced to examination of these witnesses will not take very long. I intend to call a witness for Oswald Pohl, Dr. Schmidt who has already been approved as a witness. A few days ago I also submitted another request for a witness and this one refers to Karl Wolff, General of the Waffen-SS. The Tribunal knows the witness already from the trial against Erhard Milch. I believe that the examination of that witness will eliminate the examination of a certain number of other witnesses because that witness, Karl Wolff, has quite good knowledge of a series of things to which I wanted to have other witnesses at first. Therefore I would appreciate if this Tribunal would possibly grant my request that this witness be examined immediately after the first witness. I am putting this request before the Tribunal for the simple reason that I do not know for sure if the Tribunal has already received this written request, I state explicitly that I renounce examination of Gottleb Berger.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Tribunal has been advised that you do not wish to call the witness Berger. The next proceeding will be the cross examination of this witness by the prosecution and by counsel for other defendants bearing in mind again that counsel for other defendants will only only cover such testimony as affects their clients and that all of the complex structure of the SS and of the WVHA will not be repeated.
When that is concluded, then, Dr. Seidl, you will call your next witness and who will that be? Your first witness after this one?
DR. SEIDL: The first witness is to be Dr. Sturmbannfuehrer Schmidt-Grebenow, who has been granted by this Tribunal. He is here in the Nurnberg jail and can be brought without any difficulty.
THE PRESIDENT: And then believe you wish to call the Witness Karl Wolff.
DR. SEIDL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: We lost the Witness Wolff one time inadvertently. Has he been found? Is he in Dachau or is he here in Nurnberg?
DR. SEIDL: He is in Nurnberg, Your Honor, and I already spoke with him and I believe his examination would simplify the proceedings and would expedite matters.
THE PRESIDENT: All right that determines the program for the next few days. To repeat, cross-examination of Defendant Pohl by the prosecution and by other defense counsel.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, the understanding that I have with the defense counsel is that they will proceed with their examination, after which I will examine the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, that's agreeable and then cross-examination by the prosecution and then the two witnesses who have been indicated. That will take us through today and tomorrow anyway, and we'll meet the next problem when it arises which will be after recess.
THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess will be taken.)
THE MARSHAL: All persons in the courtroom please take their seats. The Tribunal No. 2 is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Before you start, please, I want to make two corrections in statements made by the Tribunal, by myself. In questioning of this witness just before the recess, I inadvertantly referred to Amtsgruppe C-2. I should have said "Amt-C-2" number two. That is the special construction tasks. I used the word "Amtsgruppe," which, of course, was wrong. It should be "Amt C-2", "Tsvai".
I am told also that in announcing the recess for next Monday, yesterday, I said we would recess from Friday noon. I meant Friday afternoon. We will run the full session tomorrow until 4:30.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Dr. Rauschenbach for the defendant August Frank.
BY DR. RAUSCHENBACH:
Q. Witness, is it correct that the defendant Frank in the time from 1 February 1943 until 31 August 1943 was your deputy?
A. Yes.
Q. What was Frank's official position after that time, that is after the 31 August 1943?
A. He was detached to the Main Office Regular Police, where he was in charge of the administrative office.
Q. If I understand you correctly, he became Chief of the Administration of Regular Police?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. What was Frank's activity which he carried out when he was your deputy?
A. He was my deputy, and he represented me in decisions which concerned his own office group, and he represented me on important occasions outside the office.
Q. Therefore, it will be correct to say that Frank did not represent you in matters concerning the other Amtsgruppe, in particular D and W?
A. Whenever I was absent I was represented by the individual Amtsgruppe, that is to say, every chief of every office represented me with regard to his office.
Q. Did Frank in his capacity as Chief of Amtsgruppe A have anything to do with concentration camp matters with the exception of the budget question?
A. No.
Q. Do you know if Frank ever had anything to do with medical experiments and biological experiments, with uthanasia, or with extermination of the Jews?
A. He had nothing to do with it.
Q. Was Frank officially informed about questions of labor allocation and the work performed by prisoners?
A. He was not consulted in these questions either.
Q. Did Frank have anything to do with the clothing feeding, and the billeting and the treatment of prisoners?
A. No.
Q. Is it correct to say that you always personally reported to the Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler about the assignments of the WVHA?
A. Yes, the reports about administrative matters as they were dealt with by the WVHA, were solely made by me before Himmler.
Q. Is it correct that whenever you were absent the official mail, which was addressed to you as chief, was not allowed to be opened by your deputies, but that it had to be left with your adjutant or it had to be sent after you by means of a courier?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Is it furthermore correct to say that already as early as 1942 and later on to an increasing extent you became more removed from the administrative tasks of the SS and that you left these matters to Frank to a very extensive degree whereas you turned your interest to economic matters?
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, I have to object to the manner in which this examination is being conducted. I think all the questions which counsel has asked up to this point have been extremely leading. He first says, "is it correct," and then he states a long series of facts and gets the answer yes or no. I think he should ask about specific facts without stating hypothetical questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Robbins, this is cross-examination, and that being true, there is no objection to the questions being leading.
MR. ROBBINS: Your Honor, I don't believe that this is strictly cross-examination in that sense. The witness is not a hostile witness as shown by the answers to the first questions.
THE PRESIDENT: No, but this is not Dr. Rauschenbach's witness. He is confronted by a witness that he does not vouch for. He has not called him to the stand as his witness, and therefore he has the rights of cross-examination, including the right to ask leading questions.
MR. ROBBINS: The Prosecution bows to the ruling of the Court.
A. (By Dr. Rauschenbach) Witness, I do not believe that you finished answering my last question. The question was whether you yourself, since 1942, and later on, always removed yourself more and more toward the economic aspect and left to Frank the questions concerning the troop administration of the Waffen SS as his actual field of work?
A. Of course, in view of the increase of my tasks, and the assumption of new tasks, and later on, in '43, I was not able to work myself with the individual Amtsgruppe any more as I had done before. I had to give extensive authority and independence to the office group chiefs, not only of Amtsgruppe A, but also the others.
Q. Do you know who took care of the budget of the deathhead units and the concentration camps before the war?
A. Until 1936 the budget was submitted to the provincial governments. Later on they were submitted to the Reich. However, I believe until 1939 or 1940 the Inspector of the Concentration Camps himself, Obergruppenfuehrer Eicke, dealt with these matters. He made the budget as a contribution on his own part.
Q. And to whom did he submit that?
A. Either to the Finance Ministry in the Provincial Government until '36, and after the taking over of the expenditures of the concentration camps by the Reich, to the Reich Ministry of the Interior to by forwarded to the Reich Ministry for finance.
Q. In what manner was the Office for Construction and Budgeting Matters or the Administrative Office of the SS included?
A. The activity of the Main Office Construction and Budgeting was to put this contribution in to the total expenditures and budget.
Q. The activity of the Administrative Office at that time, on of the predecessors of the WVHA, was this only an administrative work and a forwarding of these matters?
A. Yes. That is what I have stated. The budget of Eicke was only included in the big budget.
Q. What was the budget of the concentration camps beginning with the outbreak of the war, was it a so-called unlimited open budget, or was it a budget as it had existed already in times of peace?
A. It was a so-called open budget for which the expenditures could be granted according to the necessities of war.
Q. Therefore the expenses for the prisoners, for example, billeting, food, medical care, etc., could be given without any previous approval?
A. Yes, that was part of it. I have already said all expenses, as far as they were caused by necessities of war, could be granted by the administrative leaders, without any prior approval.
That was for all fields.
Q. Did Frank participate in the meetings of the concentration camp commanders which took place regularly?
A. No.
Q. When by order of Himmler, as you have already stated yesterday in your interrogation, in July 1942 you saw Reichsbank Vice-President Puhl, did you know that this was property originated from the extermination of the Jews?
A. I had only been informed by Himmler that these were confiscated items and valuables which had come from the east.
Q. When did you hear for the first time of the title, "The Action Reinhardt"?
A. I heard this designation for the first time, that is when it was brought for the first time into the WVHA, by the investigation of Standartenfuehrer Vogt in June 1943.
Q. Was June 1943 also the time when you obtained your first impression of the extent and the amount of the valuables which had been confiscated?
A. Yes, that was my first impression. Yes, that is when I tained my first impression. That was in June, 1943.
Q. When did you first obtain knowledge of the origin of these valuables?
A. That was when the final report of Globocnik was submitted. That must have been at the end of 1943 when he submitted the big report about the Action Reinhardt to the Reichsfuehrer, and I received a copy of this report. That gave me an over-all picture of the entire action.
Q. When did Himmler make his speech at Posen?
A. That was October, 1943.
Q At the time when Himmler made his speech at Posen, and above all at the time when the final report of Glovocnik was submit ted, was Frank still Chief of Amtsgruppe A?
A. No.
Q. Are you of the opinion that Frank had knowledge of the Action Reinhardt, that is the order which has already been mentioned of 27 September 1942 and that he signed that order?
A. In September, 1942, nothing was known about that at all.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: May it please the Tribunal, this is Document 724, Prosecution Exhibit 472. It is in Document Book 18. It is on Page 85 of the English text. It is a document which the defense counsel for Defendant Pohl has discussed yesterday afternoon with the defendant.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Witness, now that the document is before the Tribunal, would you please repeat your answer again? I asked you if Frank knew of the Action Reinhardt when he signed this order.
A In September, 1942, the WVHA had no knowledge of this action.
Q Was he able to overlook already at that time the extent--and above all the origin--of this property and these valuables which, as we discovered later, in part also originated from the extermination of Jews? Was he able to know at the time? Did he have knowledge at that time?
A No, we were unable to see that at all at the time. We were always told that confiscated valuables would come from the East, and that we were to continue to handle them, to liquidate them. As to from whom they came and where they originated--we did not know.
Q They were valuables which already had been confiscated previously by some other agency--but not by the WVHA, and not by the defendant Frank?
A Well, we could not have confiscated these valuables because we did not have the authority to carry out such confiscations.
Q Witness, from the document, in particular the final report of Globocnik, it becomes evident that there was a very large number of valuables--and of these, properties. Where did they come from? Were they all personal property? Were they personal objects belonging to the prisoners? Were not also whole stocks of goods included in this from stocks in ghettos?
A From the documents which I received I was unable to form a clear picture. Of course, it was possible that objects were included in these shipments--above all, textiles--which came from confiscated stocks of goods. However, I was unable to see that in detail. After all, I could only see these happenings on the basis of a written report which I received, and I was unable to look at the objects myself. I do not know if they were new objects or if they had been already used.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q You told us this morning that certain amounts were turned over to the troops as Christmas presents and PX goods. Were used objects suitable for presents of that sort?
A Yes, of course, used objects could have been taken for that purpose. They may have been new objects and they may also have been used ones--but I do not know what number or to what extent. I am unable to know that.
Q You have already mentioned that Hauptsturmfuehrer Melmer was charged with the turning over and the receiving of foreign exchange and valuables, and that he had to turn them over to the Reichsband. Did Frank or his deputy in any case participate in this activity of Melmer?
A I had personally appointed Melmer, and he reported to me directly, in person. The contact did not go via Frank.
Q Is it correct that Himmler had made you personally responsible for the securing of Jewish property in favor of the German Reich?
A Yes, that is what he expressed in his speech at Posen.
Q Who was the beneficiary of all this property which had been confiscated? Was it the Reich--since the valuables were turned over to it via the Reichsbank--or was it the SS?
A Since all the objects were turned over to the Reich, the Reich must have been the only one that benefited.
Q Then I only have one more question to ask you, witness. You told us yesterday, among other things, that the execution of the whole Reinhardt Action was taken over by the WVHA, beginning the first of January 1944. Was Frank still chief of Amtsgruppe A at that time?
A No.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Thank you, witness. I have no further questions.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q Witness, I understood you to say that Frank did not know where this property came from. Is that correct?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A Yes, that is what I said.
Q Nor did he have any way of knowing where it came from?
A No, at that time it was always said that they were objects which had been confiscated in the East, and Himmler himself described them as stolen and received goods.
Q What do you think he meant when he said this in his order then?
A Do you refer to Frank, Your Honor?
Q Yes, Frank's order signed by him; NO-724, on the 26th of September, 1942.
A The order was issued on the basis of directives which Himmler had sent to us and that is how the order was worked out.
Q I don't care where the order came from. Frank signed it. You have testified to that and he says this in the order: "Pertaining to the utilization of mobile and immobile property of the evacuated Jews..."
Well, now, if he didn't know where the property came from, why did he say it came from the evacuated Jews?
A I cannot exactly recall the text of this order, and I did not know that it says so.
Q Well, that is in the order that you said he signed. It is the beginning of it.
A Yes; they are confiscated goods from the East. Who confiscated them, I don't know. And I don't know if they were taken from the Jews or Poles who had been evacuated.
Q I was not asking you what you knew. You testified what Frank knew. You said Frank knew nothing about it.
A Yes...Well, I don't know what knowledge Frank had.
Q That is what I thought, but you testified to what Frank knew about it. That is exactly what you thought: that you didn't know what he knew about it.
A I have testified here in connection with the Action Reinhardt, Court No. II, Case No. 4.Your Honor.
I said that at the time in September 1942, in the WVHA, nothing was known of the Action Reinhardt at the WVHA.
Q You were asked the question: On the 26th of September 1942, did Frank know where this property came from that is contained in the order signed by him. And you said he didn't.
A I said that confiscated objects from the East were concerned. I was not asked from whom these objects were confiscated.
Q Well, the Tribunal knows what you said about it.
BY JUDGE MUSMANNO:
Q Will it affect the answers which you have already made if we direct your attention to the last paragraph of this document--Judge Phillips already having directed your attention to the very first line of the document? The last paragraph says: "It has to be strictly observed that the Jewish star is removed from all garments and outer garments which are to be delivered."
(Question repeated due to sound difficulties) Judge Phillips called your attention to the very first line in this document. I now direct your attention to the last paragraph in the document which reads as follows:
"It has to be strictly observed that the Jewish star is removed from all garments and outer garments which are to be delivered."
Wouldn't that be somewhat revelatory of the origin of these items of which you claim absolute ignorance? And you attribute that same ignorance to the signer of the document.
A To Frank?
Q Yes, to Frank.
A There was no doubt, of course, that among these objects were items which had been taken from the Jews. That has never been disputed.
Q Very well. That is all.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Your Honors, may I ask one question in connection with the witness?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
BY DR. RAUSCHENBACH (Counsel for the defendant Frank):
Q Witness, it seems that the Tribunal has misunderstood your previous answer to the effect as you are alleged to have said that Frank could not have known that these things were taken from Jews. That is stated in the document. It states that these objects were taken from deported and resettled Jews. The question which I asked you was the following, and I repeat it once more. In issuing this order, was Frank able to first have knowledge of the designation Action Reinhardt, and 2) did he know of the extent of his Action, and 3) could he know that Jews were concerned here who had been killed or who were yet to be killed?
The document only refers to resettlement, and it only refers to Jews who had been resettled.
A He, and none of us of the WVHA at that time, were able to see that.
Q That is what I understood your previous answer to be.
Q Yes, it is on page 85 of the English Document Book. In the previous paragraph the phrase is contained which the judges just mentioned that the Jewish star was to be removed from the clothing which was sent. Would you have deducted from such a sentence that Jews were concerned who had been killed?
A No, the Jewish star had to be shown on all pieces of clothing and all garments.
Q Did you know at the time you used the word "hoarded goods" and "stored goods", did you know if Himmler had put this personally with a green pencil into the draft?
A I do not know that any more, but I do know that this expression was always used afterwards and that it originated with Himmler.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Thank you, witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you don't take eyeglasses away from people when you are resettling them, do you?
WITNESS: Your Honor, the confiscation was not only carried out on individual persons, but also stocks of goods were confiscated and I don't know what else. We were not the ones who carried out the confiscation. I was not present when the confiscations were carried out and, therefore, I do not know and did not know at the time if confiscations were carried out on individual persons or if they were carried out on stocks and stores.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean that these eye glasses were not necessarily taken from people who wouldn't see any more, but might have been taken off the shelves in the stores?
WITNESS: Yes, of course. Early in September 1942, we were not able to make ourselves a picture of that at all. Later, when the larger reports of Globocnik arrived and when by the investigation report in June 1943, I heard what had happened, then, of course, the picture became more clear to me.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you learned a couple of Jews had been killed?
THE WITNESS: At the time it became clear to me that an action against the Jews was concerned here.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Just one more question and so far as I am concerned, we will drop this line of inquiry. The President Judge just said to you that they would not take eye glasses from a person merely because he was being resettled and I will follow that up by asking nor would they take gold Would they take gold from the teeth of a person merely because of his being resettled?
WITNESS: No, they would not be taken away from people who had been resettled. As least I do not believe so.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Then this very document in itself must have indicated to you and to Frank that these articles were being taken from dead people.
WITNESS: I can very well imagine that false teeth were included there and bridges. There may have been gold crowns which were confiscated at the dentists too. In any case in September 1942 nothing was known to us of an extermination against the Jews. Later on I did know about it.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: All these Jews may just have voluntarily donated the gold from their teeth. That's a possibility also.
WITNESS: I myself did not see the fillings and the gold and so on, and, therefore, I can not judge if these fillings were taken out by force.
EXAMINATION BY DR. VON STAKELBERG (Attorney for the Defendant Fanslau)
Q Witness, the WVHA was established on the 1st of February 1942. Was the defendant Fanslau appointed Chief of Office A-5 at that time?
A I believe so, yes. I believe that at that time he was appointed.
Q Did the Defendant Fanslau try to obtain this appointment or was he appointed by an order?
A He was ordered to take over this position.
Q Through the well-known order of March 1942 the incorporation of the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps as Amtsgruppe D was ordered, effective the 1st of May 1942. Did the Defendant Fanslau participate in the conference which lead is in this order?
A No.
Q In the time afterwards, did the Defendant Fanslau repeatedly request his transfer from the WVHA to a field unit?
A I can not say that exactly, but I consider it quite possible.
Q Was the Defendant Fanslau as Chief of Office A-5 able to carry out an independent personnel policy, that is to say, could he carry out transfers on detachments to other office groups or within office groups?
A No.
Q You previously said that in October 1943, the Defendant Frank was detailed to the Main Office of the Regular Police. Did he later on at this same time still remain the Chief of Amtsgruppe A?
A No, I don't think so.
Q In the time afterwards, did the individual office chiefs of Amtsgruppe A, that is, the chiefs of A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4, did they have the authority to report directly to you?
A Yes, they did have this authority.
Q When was the defendant Fanslau directed to take over the administration of Amtsgruppe A?
A I believe that was in July 1944.
Q In the following time did the Office Chief of Amtsgruppe A continue to have the right to report directly to you?
A Yes, the office chiefs came to see me personally.
Q I have seen from the documents that the so-called Reinhardt action was classified as top secret. What does Geheime Kommandosache mean?
A The notification of this action was limited to a circle of persons which was directly connected with it.
Q Therefore, Geheime Kommandosache meant a special protection for secrecy for this order?
A Yes.
Q What classifications of secrecy existed in the Army and the Waffen SS.
A Well, we had the classifications of "Secret", "Top Secret" and "Military Secret", and the last two mean top secret.
Q Was Geheime Kommandosache the highest classification of secret?
A Yes.
Q You previously stated that with Amtsgruppe A the former Hauptsturmfuehrer Melmer was charged with the participation in the Reinhardt Action. Was it part of the duty of Melmer not to discuss this matter with anybody; that is, he was not allowed to discuss it with the Defendant Fanslau either?
A Melmer was directly subordinated to me alone and he only reported to me.
Q Did you ever discuss the Reinhardt Action with Defendant Fanslau?
A No.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: I have no further questions.
BY DR. SCHMIDT (Attorney for defendant Josef Vogt):
Q Witness, when did you make Vogt's acquaintance?