BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q Just before the noon recess you were testifying in regard to Document No. NO-059, in regard to the Defendant Vogt making an examination and report of Lublin, Operation Reinhardt. When did you send the Defendant Vogt to Lublin to make this examination?
A I sent Vogt in June, 1943, to Lublin for an examination.
Q How long did he stay when making this examination?
A It wasn't an examination. That was a checking, that is all.
Q A checking then, if you want to call it that.
A I couldn't tell you exactly how long he stayed there. I don't know how many days he stayed there.
Q About how long?
A I assume approximately two to three days.
Q. Then how soon after he came back did he make his report of his checking?
A Well, your Honor, all this was quite a while back, and I couldn't give you exact details about this. Perhaps in the course of the following eight days after his return, but I couldn't tell you for sure.
Q Anyway he stayed there long enough so that when he made his report, a preliminary report, this preliminary report was sufficient to become a final report?
A Yes.
Q. Was his task, among his tasks was it his duty to audit the books of the concentration camps?
A No, it wasn't. He was to check the treasury of the garrison administration of Lublin.
Q I know, but away from that, in his office was it his duty to check the treasuries of the various concentration camps?
A I believe that they had been checked prior to that also by Amt IV. It varied, your Honor. The books of the concentration camps were examined by the court of audits sometimes, and I believe that Office A-IV also did that, but that changed in the course of years, and I couldn't tell you for sure.
However, it used to be assumed that they also checked them. I couldn't make any further statement to that fact.
Q What were Vogt's duties after that in regard to the concentration camps under the WVHA?
A Whether or not Vogt had anything to do with the accounting of the concentration camps or checking the accounting of the concentration camps I couldn't tell you for sure. I do know that there was a preliminary checking by the court of audits in the concentration camps, but I do not know that it was not Vogt's office which did the preliminary examination.
BY DR. MUELLER-TORGAU (For Defendant Goerg Loerner):
Q Witness, when and how did you meet the Defendant Goerg Loerner?
A Loerner was already in the administrative office of the SS when I arrived there.
Q Witness, did Frank and Georg Loerner since the first of February, 1934, they work under you without interruption?
A Yes.
Q How was it that Frank, according to his rank, climbed much faster and was promoted much faster than Georg Loerner?
A He was the older, he had more important positions than him, and he was a little bit more active efficient than Georg Loerner.
Q How can it be explained then that Georg Loerner, after Frank withdrew from the WVHA, became your representative as main chief, why was it that the chief of Amtsgruppe D, Gluck did not take this position?
A Because I had to have a representative who was in the building Glucks, however, was in Oranienburg, and apart from that Gluecks was not a man who was an expert in administrative questions, and he did not know all these expert questions that arose in the WVHA.
Q Did you tell Georg Loerner when he took over, when he became your representative, that he did not have to worry about the other Amtsgruppe, particularly C and D, as before?
A My representatives generally speaking -
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, that is exactly the kind of question that the Prosecution objects to. It seems to me there is no basis whatever for allowing such questions. It is leading the witness. With giving an answer which he might not otherwise give.
THE PRESIDENT: You see the objection to this question is obvious. If you ask the witness, "What did you tell Georg Loerner about Amt C or D, "that would be all right, but you say to him, "Did you tell Georg Loerner," and then you put the words right in the mouth of the witness, and that is what is objectionable. It does not leave the witness free to give his own answer. Will you restate your question properly, please?
BY DR. MUELLER*TORGAU:
Q What did you tell Georg Loerner when he took over the represetativeship?
A I gave my representatives no particular order.
THE PRESIDENT: Now ask him, "Did you tell him anything about the chiefs of Amt C or D," or whatever you wish to know about. You may direct his attention to a particular subject without putting the words in his mouth.
Q Did Georg Loerner have to do more or less than Frank?
A They all had the same amount of work to do, and Frank had more to say because he was the elder.
Q Did Georg Loerner have the right to dispose over money?
A No.
Q In the field of the General SS, did he have anything to say?
A No.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOU (Counsel for the defendant Georg Loerner): I am sorry, Your Honors, if my questions will take a little longer than anticipated because I must remove the suggestive sting from some questions. (Loud laughter in Court) BY DR. MUELLER-TORGOU:
Q The witness Georg Loerner said that when you were not present he only had the right to issue small punishment orders and to represent you on public occasions. Is that correct?
A I can not go into such details. My department was so organized that I could really disappear for two or three days and that my representative did not have to worry about details. I did not therefore issue special orders in case I should be absent.
Q During the year and a half of the war during which time Georg Loerner was your representative, were you absent from Berlin quite often?
A I did not travel very much because I had quite a few official things to take care of in Berlin during the last year of the war, so I travelled very little.
Q How often were you absent on the average?
A Two days.
Q During your absence from the WVHA was there any connection between Berlin and you?
A Generally speaking, even during my absence I did not let the reins leave my hands. Generally speaking, I called up Berlin in the evening and I inquired about urgent natters.
Q Did Georg Loerner have the right during your absence to sign the reports to Himmler, even if you had agreed to the contents of the report before your departure, basically, that is?
A Due to the short period of time in which I was absent that did not arise.
Q I shall now turn to Georg Loerner's activity in economic fields of tasks. Georg Loerner, when the DWB was established, contributed to its establishment; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Was it intended at the time by that to let him work practically in the DWB or not?
A No. That was not intended. I usually only called upon him when we formed new enterprises - as a member of an enterprise.
Q Georg Loerner took a share in that particular business up to 10,000 Reichsmarks; is that correct?
A You mean in the DWB? Yes.
Q Did matters rest there?
A No, afterwards he transferred these shares to someone else because he only needed those in order to establish the firm.
Q What do you mean by "afterwards?"
AAfter the firm was established.
Q I see. You said yesterday, witness, that you were the only manager of the DWB. Do you recall the fact that, formally speaking, you were the first one and Georg Loerner was the second manager for the DWB?
A Yes, that is correct, but of the business manager, it was I who was the only one who was active.
Loerner was not very active in that.
Q Who was it that, formally speaking, issued orders in the name of the DWB?
A I did.
Q You said yesterday that the creation of the so-called Amtsgruppe W had a technical importance and was not to be compared with the Amtsgruppen A to C. When you took over this Amtsgruppe, as chief, did you assign Georg Loerner to serve as your representative also in that capacity? This power of attorney that Georg Loerner received, did that arrive from his position as second business manager of the DWB?
A I made Loerner my representative of Amtsgruppe W because, as a man who had a diploma in commerce, he seemed to be the best qualified man in the DWB to take over this job.
Q Did Georg Loerner, as your deputy, in your position as chief of Amtsgruppe W, did he ever make any decision?
A I made the decisions.
Q Do you recall your decree of the 8th of December 1942, whereby the W offices had to report to Leorg Loerner in all important matters?
A Yes.
Q Did that decree ever become reality?
A Shortly afterwards that decree was cancelled because it didn't work out. The Amts-chiefs who came from the outside first saw him and then often missed their connections with me so that he had to come to me a day or two after. That was the reason why I eliminated this procedure and they had to report directly and exclusively to me.
Q Georg Loerner, when new firms were established, was also called upon and had to buy certain shares. Was it intended here that he was to work in one of those enterprises himself in some position?
A No, I only used him as a second shareholder during the establishment.
Q Was it the same with the establishment of the OSTI G.m.b.H.?
A I think so, I don't know for sure.
Q I believe that you said before that in establishing Osti you wanted to clear up the somewhat confused armament conditions in the Eastern territories and to put all the enterprises under a central direction. Did you think about the exploitation of Jewish labor and if so did you tell anything about it to Georg Loerner?
A Jewish labor was being used prior to the establishment of the OSTI in the various enterprises. That was one of the reasons but it was not the primary reason. I do not believe that I discussed this matter with Loerner.
Q Did Georg Loerner for the activities just mentioned receive any remuneration?
A No.
Q Witness, what was the actual field of tasks of Loerner's?
A Chief of Amtsgruppe B - Group Economy.
Q Why was it that Georg Loerner when the WVHA was established received the position as chief of Amtsgruppe B?
A Because it had something to do with economic matters which he, as a businessman, could cope with best.
Q Witness, during the first day of your examination you told us about the most important field of tasks of Amtsgruppe B. When discussing the tasks of Amtsgruppe B-1, that had to deal with food, you said that the food rations for concentration camp inmates had been arranged by the Reichs Ministry for Food. Did Georg Loerner when determining these quotas, in any way have anything to do with that?
A No.
Q Was Georg Loerner responsible for the supply of food to the concentration camps and for the distribution of food rations to the individual inmates? Did he have anything to do in a supervisory capacity?
A No.
Q Was the food inspector of the Waffen-SS subordinate to Prof. Schenk? Was he subordinate to the chief of Amtsgruppe B or was he only assigned to that Amtsgruppe in order to have a position in the WVHA.
A The food inspector was subordinate to me personally and directly, although he had his planning office in Amtsgruppe B.
Q Did Georg Loerner have the right to issue orders to the food inspector? Any orders of any kind?
A He received his orders from me.
Q Did you ever discuss the matter with Georg Loerner about experiments with food on concentration camp inmates?
A No.
Q Witness, I shall now turn to a few questions which deal with the clothing industry. Did Georg Loerner, in his ministerial instance have anything to do with clothing of the inmates in concentration camps?
A The administration of the concentration camps were competent for that.
Q And in a supervisory instance?
A In the supervisory instance the Amt D-IV was competent.
Q In your opinion, did Georg Loerner, on the basis of the raw material situation which was becoming worse and worse during the war - did he do whatever was in his power to obtain the necessary raw materials? Do you recall, for instance, the request of Burger, with Amt D-IV? Do you recall that Georg Loerner had a report sent to Himmler in which he refers to the impossibility to comply with the requests of Amtsgruppe D fully?
A I can recall the report, however, I no longer remember if it came from Burger.
Q Document Book No. 7 contains the Document NO-287. That is on page 99 of the German Document Book and on page 250 of the English Document Book. This deals with the letter of Obersturmbannfuehrer Brandt, from Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler's personal staff, to you, in which he asks you to send a report - or rather an order - to the Clothes Ministry in order to put experimental clothes at the disposal of Dachau. Do you recall that Georg Loerner in this connection had done anything about it?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A. No, I can no longer recall this incident today.
Q In other words, you don't know either if Georg Loerner ever had any knowledge of this letter?
A No, I cannot recall this incident.
Q The prosecution, by introducing Document NO-519, in Document 19, page 44 in the German Document Book and in the English Document Book on page 41, and so forth, brought Georg Loerner into connection with the taking over of the Ghetto and Litzmannstadt. That is when the Ghetto and Litzmannstadt was changed into a concentration camp. This complex was discussed today, this morning. From the entire correspondence that was submitted, only one single letter was sent to Georg Loerner, for information. I would like to read this letter. It comes, I assume, from you. There is no name here and it is addressed to Gauleiter Greiser in Posen.
"Dear Gauleiter:
"I thank you for your letter of the 15th of February, 1944, File Note 386-44. I am very glad that with your conversation with the Reichsfuehrer SS the question of the Ghetto in Litzmannstadt has been cleared up for good. I note with pleasure that the SS-WVHA has no longer anything to do with the matter. As far as a share is concerned in our French wine shipment, I shall write you within the next few days."
Why was it that this letter was sent to the Defendant Georg Loerner contrary to all other letters which were not sent him. Why was it sent to him for informational purposes?
A The last sentence was a personal request of the Gauleiter, and Loerner was to take care of that. It has nothing to do with the balance of the letter.
Q Did Georg Loerner at any time participate in the Friday conversations and conferences which you mentioned the other day with Gluecks and Mauer?
A No.
Q Did Georg Loerner have any official connections with the con Court No. II, Case No. 4.centration camp commandants or did he participate in the conference in Oranienburg at any time?
A I don't think so. As far as I know, no.
Q Did you ever discuss medical experiments with Georg Loerner in the concentration camps?
A No.
Q Did he ever have anything to do with them?
A No.
Q The last question now, Witness, what would have been the effect on you if Georg Loerner would have violated one of your orders, in other words, not followed them, sabotaged them? Can you imagine that?
A No.
DR. MUELIER-TORGAU: Thank you. No further questions, Your Honor.
JUDGE MUSSMANO: Suspend just for a moment, please.
DR. HOFFMAN (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT SCHEIDE): Your Honor, if we were called upon as we sit, Dr. Pribila, for the defendant Tschentscher and I, for Scheide would have to question the Defendant Pohl, but in order to simplify matters, I should like to declare for my colleague, Dr. Pribilla, who is present in court, that we do not intend to use Pohl for our defendant's evidence. We have no questions from the Defendant Pohl. However, we should like to reserve the right in case we should have more questions after the cross-examination is over to put questions before him then.
BY DR. STEIN (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT EIRENSCHMALZ):
Q Witness, during the years before the war, you were the Chief of the Administration Office of the SS which was later on called the Main Office for Budget and Building, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q In this office, Eirenschmalz was also there?
A Yes.
Q Was Eirenschmalz busy as expert for the construction project Court No. II, Case No. 4.of the SS for the Verfuegungsgruppe (Special Tasks Group)?
A Eirenschmalz, during the first period, only dealt with the execution of the repair work for the quarries of the Bereitschaft, of the Political Task Group in Munich. Later on within the frame work of the Verfuegungs Group, he acted as a liaison officer between the troop and the office.
Q Witness, is it correct that the construction matters of the Death Head Units in the concentration camps went through the office of Construction?
A Yes, the Inspectorate of the concentration camps until 1940 had a construction organization of its own, which was directly subordinate to the Inspectorate and was part of the WVHA.
Q You wish to say then, that early in 1940, the work was taken over by your office?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q What was the reason for that date? Did that have any connection with the fact that the Inspector for the concentration camps was Gluecks and that he was a divisions commander and went to the front-was that the reason?
A It was caused by Eicke's resignation. Around 1939 or 1940, early in 1941, he, together with the Totenkopf, Death Head Division, went up to the front line. When he left, many of those construction works were transferred to the WVHA.
Q Is it correct that towards the end of 1939 and early in 1940, Eirenschmalz was no longer in that office, but had already been transferred to the Fuehrung's Main Office?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Can you recall the exact date, if it was around 1939 to 1940?
A I do not recall the correct date.
Q At that time had the Fuehrungschauptamt been established?
A I couldn't tell that for sure. I am not quite sure.
Q Who is it that came from the Inspectorate of the Concentration Court No. II, Case No. 4.Camps to your office?
THE PRESIDENT: There was a question which we didn't understand. At that time had the "something or other" been established?
DR. STEIN: Your Honor, in order to help the witness' memory, I wanted to draw his attention to the fact that early -
THE PRESIDENT: We didn't get the word. We didn't get the word. You asked him, "At that time had the -- some word -
DR. STEIN: Fuehrungshaptamt is the word, Your Honor. It is the Operational Main Office.
THE PRESIDENT: That's it.
Q The tasks which had something to do with the concentration camps prior to that, which Sturmbannfuehrer Riedel had taken along with him, did Riedel then continue his work in your office.
A Riedel was the construction expert with Eicke and he was the one who brought the entire construction organization along with him from the Inspectorate into the WVHA.
Q Witness, when the concentration camp activities in your office were taking place Eirenschmalz was no longer in your office; is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q When he left you, Eirenschmalz, did he request his resignation from the SS?
A I can no longer recall that.
Q Can you recall that prior to that, that is, early in 1938, Eirenschmalz had made such an application to you?
A No.
Q Did you not know that? What was the reason why Eirenschmalz wanted to leave you? Was it perhaps Eirenschmalz had difficulties with you? Well, what was the reason why Eirenschmalz left your office?
A The reason probably was because I had taken over Riedel who came from the Inspectorate. Riedel became his superior and Eirenschmalz did not like that. That was the reason why he probably left.
Q Could you tell me what the relation between you and Eirenschmalz was?
A The relationship between the two was good. It wasn't bad.
Q On both sides?
A Well, as far as I could see. I couldn't see into his soul.
Q I shall come to that document which is Document Book 21; Document NO-2325, Exhibit No. 514. This document is an affidavit of Eichele and it says that in the summer of 1940 the crematory was built by the construction department of Dachau and the order for the full construction of this crematory came from the construction department in the Main Office Economy and Construction Budget and Standartenfuehrer Eirenschmalz was in charge of construction in the main office of the SS - the initiative office of the SS.
Witness, you have just said that at that time during the summer of 1940 Eirenschnalz was no longer in your office for quite a few months but he was of the SS operational office. Is that correct?
A Yes, that's correct.
Q How can you explain the fact that Eichele in this affidavit can make such a statement, namely, that Eirenschmalz has ordered the construction of this crematory?
A It is possible that Standartenfuehrer Eichele did not know of Eirenschmalz's transfer to the operational office.
Q Eirenschmalz was then with the SS Fuehrungshauptamt since then I do not wish to ask you any questions as to what Eirenschmalz's tasks were there because you were not in charge of that Amt and therefore you couldn't possibly give me statements from your own knowledge. On 1 February 1942 Eirenschmalz came to the WVHA. Is it correct that Eirenschnalz at that time had made a request in order to be used as an administrative officer in a field unit but that the request was not granted and he was assigned to the administrative office?
A I can no longer recall that.
Q With the WVHA Eirenschmalz was a member of the Amtsgruppe C which was under Kammler's supervision and he was Chief of Amtsgruppe C-6. Do you know the tasks of that office? You'll find then in your organizational chart, and I may repeat what it reads there: It was preliminary examination of the accounts of a price control. Could this office be called an examination office?
A Yes, it was considered a construction examination office, this Amtsgruppe.
Q Was the main task of that office the preliminary examination of the accounts?
MR. ROBBINS: I suggest that counsel can ask what the main tasks of the office are without telling the witness what it is.
THE PRESIDENT: Ask him. Don't tell him.
DR. STEIN: What was the largest of the departments in Amt C-6?
A. I could not tell you that. All I know is that Amt C-6, all of the construction bills came in and the accounts and they were checked together with the Audit Court of the Reich.
Q Didn't an official of the Audit Court of the German Reich come currently or frequently to that office in order to live directions or to discuss matters? You would have conferences and negotiations there?
A I believe all representatives of the Auditing Court had enough of the C-6; I believe so.
Q The reason and the purpose of this office, was it to prevent frauds and defrauding?
A Yes, of course.
Q Witness, earlier this morning you spoke about the construction of gas chambers but I am of the opinion together with my client that this question must be cleared, once and forever, and in the interest of my client now I ask you No. 1: did Amt C-6 carry out planning and establishments of prisoner-of-war camps, concentration camps, gas chambers or crematories?
AAmt C-6 had nothing to do with planning after the establishment.
Q In other words, after the conclusion of things?
A No.
Q Witness, we would like to know now for sure who was in charge of construction?
A The Amt in which the planning took place. I don't know what number it is.
Q I shall ask you again: did Amt C-6 have anything to do with this?
A I answered that Amt C-6 had nothing to do with planning.
Q And neither had anything to do with construction?
A No.
Q Who was then in charge of administration of Construction work? I refer to the concentration camps and prisoner-ofwar camps and all the other dreadful constructions which were then established there.
A They were administered by the competent administration office that is to say the concentration camps construction by the administrative office of the respective concentration camp.
Q Did the Amt C-6 the examination office have anything to do with those things?
A No.
Q Eirenschmalz is further mentioned in the organizational chart as Kammler's deputy and he took over on 1 January 1943 according to your organizational chart. Is it correct that Eirenschmalz in May 1943 was sent to a hospital for quite awhile?
A I do not recall.
Q Witness, we will fact the fact that Eirenschmalz suffered from some sort of stomach disease. He has been suffering from ulcers. After he had been released from the hospital he reported back to you. Can you recall that?
A Yes, I know that he was ailing, and I know that he is ailing but I can not recall that in May 1943 that he was in the hospital. It's possible but I am not quite sure.
Q Can you recall, witness, that early in 1943 a damage caused by bombs had occurred and due to that damage the Amt could no longer work and that hall of the personnel was used in order to clear up the rubble?
A Yes, that's correct.
Q What was the reason that Eirenschmalz was made Kammler's deputy?
A He must have been the senior in service.
Q Do you know whether during that time in question Kammler went on leave? That is, he went on annual leave?
A That's possible. I can not recall all of those moments.
Q Witness, you told us that Kammler was a man of high wits, who, was reputed ambitious, besides. Do you think that such a person would have Eirenschmalz to represent him?
THE PRESIDENT: That's a very bad one.
DR. STEIN: Well, you don't want to answer that. Well, I have no further questions from the witness.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. BELZER ( for defendant Karl Sommer):
Q. Witness, since when do you know the defendant Karl Sommer?
A. Ever since the summer of 1942.
Q. Can you tell us today under what circumstances you heard of the Defendant Sommer for the first time?
A. I believe it had something to do with the reassignment of the camp commander Loritz.
Q. Can you tell us what the defendant Sommer had to do with this reassignment?
A. I believe that he was collecting the evidence against Loritz.
Q. Did Gluecks and Maurer have to come to report to you once a week?
A. Yes.
Q. Was Maurer ever represented by Sommer?
A. I cannot remember exactly, but I hardly believe that Sommer ever was the deputy of Maurer.
Q. Do you remember conferences with Gluecks in March and April, 1945, which Sommer attended accompanied by Gluecks?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the subject of these discussions?
A. It was the recreation of the agencies.
Q. What position, as far as you can recall, did the Defendant Sommer occupy in the WVHA?
A. He was collaborator in the Amt D-II, under Maurer.
Q. What do you have to say with regard to the allegation of the Prosecution that Sommer had been the Deputy Amts Chief of Amt D-II?
A. I do not know anything to the effect that he ever had been appointed to that position.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. The chart which you signed -- Exhibit 36 -- says that he was Deputy Chief of Amt D-2.
DR. BELZER (Counsel for the defendant Sommer): Your Honor, I shall refer to this question a little later.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
BY DR. BELZER:
Q. Who, according to your recollection, would have been able to appoint Sommer as the chief of the office?
A. The appointment as chief of the office was carried out by the Personnel Main Office.
Q. And for the Deputy of the Office?
A. I could have appointed him to that position.
Q. Have you seen Document NO-2672 in Document book 3, presented by the Prosecution, which the President has referred to a little earlier? And have you seen the organizational plan which was contained therein which you confirmed as being correct? Have you discussed this chart with the defendant Sommer prior to signing it?
A. No.
Q. Did you show this organizational chart to the defendant Sommer before you signed it?
A. I did not have it in my possession.
Q. Is the entry in the square Amt "D-2" on the last time, "Deputy Sturmbannfuehrer" correct?
A. No.
Q. To what extent is it incorrect?
A. He never was the Deputy Chief of the office. And, furthermore, he was Hauptsturmfuehrer--he was never Sturmbannfuehrer.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Well, your statement which is attached to this chart says that you have checked this organizational chart and certify that to the best of your knowledge and belief this chart is a true representation of the Economic a Main Office.