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.
And then you signed it.
A. I have already discussed this subject once before, Your Honor. In examining this chart I requested that the individual Amtsgruppen should be examined by the heads of the Main Offices--which were located here in Nurnberg--because I cannot exactly recall who held the individual positions and who carried out the individual tasks. I, therefore, depended on this re-examination, and that is why I signed this chart. I do not know who carried out the examination of Amtsgruppe D, and that is where the mistake occurred.
Q. Are there any other mistakes in the chart that you know of?
A. I have not discovered any additional ones, up to now. However, it is a clear mistake because Sommer, first of all, was never Sturmbannfuehrer--but Hauptsturmfuehrer. And I can also recall that he was never appointed Deputy Chief of the Office because, actually, his grade was not sufficient for that. At that time he would have had to be Sturmbannfuehrer.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. RATZ (Counsel for the defendant Hermann Pook):
Q. Witness, in Amtsgruppe D, in the WVHA, Dr. Lolling was the chief of Amt D-3, the medical service of the concentration camps, and since the Fall of 1943 the dentist-in-charge there was the defendant Hermann Pook-
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Court, Counsel does not have to tell this witness what position Dr. Lolling held. The witness has already testified what position he held. I suggest that he ask what position Pook held without telling him or suggesting the answers.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead.
Q. Did you know what position Dr. Hermann Pook occupied in Office D-3?
A. I have seen Pook here in Nurnberg for the first time. I did not know that he was a member of Amtsgruppe D, and nor did I know that he was a dentist there.
I have never seen him previously in Berlin.
Q. Didn't you know his name in Berlin?
A. No, I did not know him by name either in Berlin.
Q. Can you tell us if the leading dentist participated in conferences or sessions with you?
A. I never saw him at my office.
Q. Then you probably cannot tell us either if he occupied the position of Amt-chief, (head of a department)?
A. No.
Q. Or that of a dentist-in-chief?
A. I don't know that either. I have only heard of these things here, and he Was completely unknown to me at Berlin.
Q. However, you did know Dr. Lolling?
A. Yes, I knew Lolling.
Q. How do you judge Lolling as far as his character is concerned?
A. Well, nothing in particular came to my attention with regard to him. I never knew any of his colleagues, and whatever he submitted to me he usually had written himself.
Q. I am talking about his colleagues; if he used a lot of them or if he tended to primarily carry out all the work by himself.
A. I cannot give you any information at all about that because I do not know.
Q. What did you personally have to do with Lolling?
A. Lolling submitted monthly medical reports to me about the concentration camps.
Q. Did he also discuss dental questions with you?
A. No.
Q. During his discussions with you, did he ever consult another physician or another dentist?
A. Lolling always saw me alone.
Q. You described to us yesterday that Sturmbannfuehrer Melmer had been given the assignment to supervise the transport of valuables from Auschwitz to the building of the WVHA at Berlin, and then to accompany these objects directly to the Reichsbank.
Do you know if Amt D-3 was the -- Did Dr. Lolling or one of his colleagues have anything to do with this turning over of the objects?
A. On my part I would say that they did not have anything to do with it. I have not heard anything which would allow this conclusion.
Q. Do you know who supervised the removal of the gold fillings from teeth of prisoners who had died?
A. I do not know who issued an order to that effect.
Q. With regard to the removal of gold fillings from prisoners who had died of natural causes, a previous order in 1940 had been issued by Himmler. Do you know anything with regard to that order?
A. I knew nothing of this order because he only entered the office in 1942.
Q. Do you know anything about the fact that this gold from the teeth which was removed in the case of prisoners who had died of natural causes was delivered through the concentration camp administration and not through the dentist Amt D-3?
A. No, I do not know anything about it -
MR. ROBBINS: I object to the question and ask that it be stricken from the record.
THE PRESIDENT: In view of the witness's answer that he knows nothing about it, the question has not led him to a favorable answer. I do not think your objection calls for a ruling.
Q. The gold which originated from the mass executions at Auschwitz, therefore, as you said did not go through the administration of the concentration camp Oranienburg but it was sent directly from Auschwitz to Berlin and was delivered to the Reichsbank.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait, wait. You see, that isn't even a question. You didn't ask him anything--you just told him several facts. That is objectionable.
Q. The witness has already testified that transports went from Auschwitz directly to the Reichsbank at Berlin, and I therefore asked him if he can say if the transports were in any way channeled through Oranienburg.
A. I know nothing about that, and I do not know if these objects passed through Oranienburg on their way to Berlin.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. HEIM (Counsel for the defendant Hohberg):
Q. Witness, when did you first make the acquaintance of the codefendant Hohberg?
A. Approximately in 1940.
Q. Can you still remember the occasion when you made his acquaintance for the first time?
A. At the time I met him personally at Prague on the occasion of a final conference with regard to some sort of an examination.
Q. As far as you know, by whose order did Dr. Hohberg carry out this examination?
A. I cannot remember that anymore.
Q. What was it that brought about the contract between you and Dr. Hohberg?
A. At the time I contacted Oberfuehrer Mueckel who had pointed out Dr. Hohberg to me, and I had ordered Dr. Mueckel to establish contact with him and to ask him whether he was prepared to work for me as an economic auditor.
Q Can you tell us approximately the contents of this contract?
A It was a very brief and simple contract which contained the obligations arising out of it, that is, his entry as an economic auditor and my personal consultant in matters pertaining to the examination and auditing of taxes and on the question of regulations about his salary.
Q Was the codefendant Hohberg employed in the WVHA by virtue of this contract?
A No, he did not become an employee, but he actually remained a free economic auditor and the contract which I concluded with him was just a contract for employment. It was not an official contract.
Q According to the regulations of this contract, did Dr. Hohberg have to carry out an auditing work and consulting work toward the authorities of the WVHA, that is, within Amtsgruppe A, B, C, and D?
A He had nothing whatsoever to do with these Amtsgruppes.
Q Did you ever appoint the codefendant Dr. Hohberg as chief of an Amt?
A That was impossible, because he was not even a member of the SS.
Q On the chart presented by the prosecution, Dr. Hohberg has been described Chief of Staff W. Can you tell us whether this designation on this chart is correct or not?
A This designation in itself is correct, and that is the reason why I left it in its present form. I have already stated why I selected the same picture for the economic enterprises as for the remainder of the Amtsgruppe and offices. However in Amtsgruppe W, there was never the office of a Chief of Staff. The members of Staff W were my personal collaborators and they were all on the same level. They worked on various matters and if I am to describe here the position of the Chief of Staff W, then I could say that he was Primus inter Paris.
Q Witness, if I understood you correctly
MR. ROBBINS: Excuse me, I didn't get the last answer. Will you repeat it please?
THE PRESIDENT: He was something -
INTERPRETER: He was "Primus inter Paris", the first among equal partners.
Q Witness, if I understood you correctly then, you have never appointed Dr. Hohberg as Chief of an Amt?
A He has never received such an appointment from me.
Q Do you know that in the Institute of Economic Auditors, which was superior to Dr. Hohberg - in 1942 a denunciation arrived there from an unknown person which stated that Dr. Hohberg was chief of an Amt in the WVHA and, therefore, he should lose his qualifications as an economic auditor?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Do you know who made this denunciation at that time or who was alleged to have made it?
A I believe it came from an employee of Staff W, whose name, however, I can not remember any more at this moment.
Q Do you perhaps happen to know what happened to this employee of Staff W?
A He was charged with libel and he was jailed by a court.
Q Do you know how the Institute of Economic Auditors, the superior agency of Dr. Hohberg reacted to that denunciation?
A I can remember that answering an inquiry by the Institute for Economic Auditors, I said that Dr. Hohberg was employed by me as a free worker and that he was my personal consultant in tax matters and that he did not carry out any function of authority and that he was not an employee of the WVHA.
Q Witness, if I understood you correctly, you informed the Institute for Economic Auditors at the time that Dr. Hohberg was neither an employee nor a business manager nor a head clerk in the WVHA or the DWB.
A Yes, that is about right, he was only an employee.
Q What firms were basically comprised in Staff W according to their branches?
A The firms which according to the character of their production could not be incorporated into the other offices. The offices were distributed according to fields of tasks, earth and stone, food, and so forth, and the firms that could not be comprised into those fields of tasks were then incorporated into Staff W.
Q From your organizational incorporation of the firms into Staff-W can the conclusion be drawn that the members of Staff W had authority to issue orders towards these firms?
A No.
Q Whom, for example, were the Eastern industries subordinated to and the German Medicine, G.m.b.H.?
A It was so that these enterprises were subordinated to me personally and that in directing these enterprises I used the collaborators in Staff W according to the questions with which I had to deal, that is, legal questions, registration questions, tax questions, and so on.
Q If you used the members of Staff W, did these have a right to issue instructions to the firms in question?
A No, only I had the right to issue instructions.
Q Is it correct that negotiations took place for the appointment of a General Director for the DWB and this was to be established under your direction?
A Yes. Already at that time I wanted to take Amtsgruppe W out of the WVHA and I wanted to make a free, separate enterprise out of it under a general director.
At that time I negotiated with several people. However, no agreement was reached.
Q I now refer to Document 1005, Prosecution Exhibit 390, in Document Book 14. This document shows that the SS Member 'Grueber, who had been placed at Dr. Hohberg's disposal, was taken away from him in 1944 and that he was assigned to other war work. Was Dr. Hohberg informed of this on the same day?
A I can not recall that exactly. I only know that about that time the auditors which were at Dr. Hohberg's disposal in Staff W were dismissed in order to simplify the organization and that they were turned over to the main companies and affiliated projects.
Q From that moment on, did the previous members of the Waffen-SS of Staff W no longer belong to Staff W?
A No, from that time on they were not members of the Staff W any more, but they had been detailed to the affiliated company.
Q When did you entrust the Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr Horn with the preparation of the establishment of the Osti, who, until then, had been one of the auditors?
MR. ROBBINS: May I ask that the counsel reword the question. It is obviously leading.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I can not quite understand whether the prosecution means by that I asked a leading question?
THE PRESIDENT: The latter part of your question started to state facts to the witness. If you will stop with the first part of your question, you will be all right. Start it over again and I will stop you at the right point.
Q When did you entrust Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Horn with the preparation of the establishment of the Osti?
THE PRESIDENT: There. Fine.
AApproximately in January 1943.
Q Until that period of time was Dr. Horn one of your auditors?
A Yes.
Q Did Dr. Hohberg from the 20th of January 1943 on have any right to issue instructions to the auditors who had been detached, in particular to Dr. Horn?
A I can not confirm that date. The authority of Dr. Hohberg to issue instructions to auditors ended with their assignment to the enterprises. Also Dr. Horn was taken away from his control with the assignment which was connected with the establishment of the Osti.
Q. Do you know up to what time the action Reinhart was treated as top secret in the WVHA?
A. Always.
Q. From your knowledge of this state of affairs, can you tell me if it was possible that members of the Staff W before the end of June 1943 knew anything about the character of the action Reinhart?
A. Probably not before that period of time but only from the time on when the definition Reinhart Fund became known in connection with a credit to the DWB with Staff W.
Q. Do you know if perhaps the designation Reinhart Fund was chosen because the outsiders would come across this name in connection with State Secretary Reinhart in the Reich Ministry of Finance?
A. I do not know that.
Q. Was the suggestion to turn over some part of the prisoners pay to the Lebensborn made? Was this question over discussed, or was it ever considered as being a serious suggestion?
A. I immediately disapproved the suggestion at the time.
Q. Is it correct that in the year 1942 Dr. Hohberg requested you, stating that for reasons of taxation he wanted to withdraw the drafts of Dr. Volk before you had a chance to sign them?
MR. ROBBINS: I object to the question.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, let me get technical. I can't rule on an objection to a question unless you state the reason for it.
MR. ROBBINS: The reason, your Honor, is that I believe it is clearly leasing.
THE PRESIDENT: Your objection is well taken. Start all over again and don't tell the witness too much.
DR. HEIM: I shall take the leading part out of the question.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q. Did Dr. Hohberg ever request you that for reasons of taxation he should be able to see the drafts of Dr. Volk before they were signed by you?