A. They were adopted I believe in 1936.
Q. Well, that is pretty nearly right. 1935. When they were adopted, did you hear about them?
A. I heard as a whole, but I did not see the details.
Q. As you remember it, what did they provide?
A. They were decrees for the protection of the German blood, so far as I know. They were regulations about marriages between the Germans, between people of German blood and people of non-German blood. I believe that was the provision of the decree. However, I did not know any of the details of the decree, because I actually never read it.
Q. Did you ever read "Der Stuermer"?
A. I personally never read the paper. I would see it in a public place. I did not subscribe to "Der Stuermer" and it was not a part of my literature.
Q. Did you ever read it, at all?
A. I occasionally looked at it, yes.
Q. What did it say about the Jews?
A. Well, I could not say as to this. It just played a strong exaggeration, which was a provoking opinion of the Jews.
Q. Let me read you one paragraph and see whether you remember reading this: "Not only is Germany not safe in the face of Jews as long as one Jew lives in Europe, but also the Jewish question is hardly solved in Europe so long as Jews live in the rest of the world." That was published in May, 1942. Do you remember reading that?
A. No, I can not recall that. Of course, "Stuermer" only printed things of that sort. However, I can not say today if I read that particular sentence. It is not different anyhow from the farm in which the "Stuermer" printed these articles.
Q. That is right, and they all said the same thing in different words, didn't they, all the articles in the "Stuermer"?
A. Yes, quite, that is correct.
Q. You, and everybody else knew that the policy of the "Stuermer" was to stir up anti-Jewish feeling?
A. Yes, that is what the "Stuermer" occupied itself with.
Q. Now, when you joined the Party, did you know anything about its principles, or its policies?
A. I have already pointed out that I did not occupy myself with racial questions, and the Jewish question particularly.
Q. No, no. When you decided to become a member of the National Socialist Party, did you know what its declared principles were?
A. I knew of this program, but I did not know any more than what was shown in this program about the Jews, or of the racial question.
Q. Well, six years before you joined the Party, the Party program was announced containing twenty-five different points, and point four, which I will read to you, was one of them: "Only a member of the race can be a citizen, and a member of the race can only be one who is of German blood without consideration of creed. Consequently, no Jew can be a member of the race." Did you ever hear that before?
A. Yes, I read that.
Q. You knew that was a part of the Nazi Creed?
A. Yes, I knew that.
Q. And do you subscribe to it? You agree with it?
A. Yes, I knew that.
Q. No, not that you knew it. You agree with this statement I have just read when you joined the Party in 1926?
A. Through my entry to the Party I agreed to its program.
Q. And you knew what the program was?
A. Yes, I knew it.
Q. So in 1926 you knew that you were joining an organization which believed that no Jew could be a member of the race?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know what happened on November 9 and 10th, 1938, in Germany?
A. Yes, I do not know exactly just now what you are referring to.
Q. At that time you had been a number of the SS for four years?
A. Yes.
Q. Those are the two nights in which the SS and others destroyed all the synagogues and the stares of the Jewish people, and beat them, and with the help of the Gestapo arrested between twenty and thirty thousand of them. Did you ever hear about that before?
A. Yes.
Q. Where were you then, in Berlin?
A. Yes, at that time I was at Berlin.
Q. Did any of this violence take place in Berlin?
A. I only read that something like that had happened in the press, that excesses had been committed against the Jews.
Q. Where?
A. At Berlin.
Q. You did not see any of it?
A. No.
Q. And you were not on duty as an SS officer that night?
A. Well, I slept during the night. I worked as an administrative chief, and I did not have anything to do with that or what happened, whatever, in the streets.
Q. Well, all right. Did you hear about it the next day?
A. The next day I heard of it.
Q. What did you hear?
A. I heard that excesses had been committed against the Jews.
Q. By members of the SS?
A. The SS and SA, and other units participated in it.
Q. And the Gestapo?
A. Yes, certainly, the Gestapo.
Q. But including the SS?
A. Yes, SS also, yes.
Q. Well, did you begin to suspect by that time that it was a National policy in Germany to murder all the Jews?
A. No, I did not think of that at the time. I believe in 1938 and 1939 nobody ever thought of exterminating the Jews. It was nothing unusual. It cannot be described to the world today that the riots at Berlin at the time had been the first excesses against the Jews.
Pogroms against the Jews, and excesses had taken place in Europe at all times. And I was surprised to read in a journal after the war that inspite of the cruel happenings in Germany, the Jews had begun being persecuted in Poland, and there must have been some sort of reason for it. The Jews had done nothing to me up to now, and I have done nothing against the Jews. I could not do anything to stop the Germans from taking steps against the Jews. Therefore, there must be two sides to this matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, no, there are not two sides to a murder. There is just one side to a murder. I am not talking about excluding the Jews from the German Reich which the German Reich would have a perfect right to do, I am talking about wholesale mass murder. Do you think there are two sides to that?
AAbsolutely not. I was not filled with this extermination idea of the Jews, or cater ot it today, nor did I then. I condemn this today as I did then. I regret I did not have the power to stop the state government from carrying out this program.
Q You regret that you didn't have the power to leave two organizations that were actually doing the exterminating, the SS and the National Socialist Party?
A Your Honor, when I heard of this for the first time, that the state government was engaged in a formal plan for the extermination of the Jews, at that time we were not in peace times, but we were in war. According to my fundamental attitude on these questions, in peacetime I would have resigned from my office. However, we were in a war, a war to life and to death in which my Fatherland was engaged. In view of the terrible suffering which was taking place in Germany, in view of the hundreds and thousands of lives, of human phosphor torches, I was confronted by the question, under my oath as soldier, I had to choose between the German people and the Jewish people. Your Honor, I have decided in favor of the German people, and I have remained in my position during the war. I now state that I did not want to be more of a coward than the hundreds and thousands of young soldiers who sacrificed their lives before the guns of the enemies. If that was a crime, to remain on my post as a soldier during the war, then, Your Honor, I am prepared to voluntarily put my head down before the seat of this high Tribunal.
Q You see, you miss the point. I am not talking about Germany at war at all, and I haven't mentioned any date after 1939. I am talking about 1926, 1934, 1938. You were not a soldier defending your homeland then, were you?
A I was not, Your Honor. In 1936 and 1938, at that time nobody in Germany spoke of the fact that the Jewish people in Germany were to be exterminated. Individual excesses, also, if they were carried out by party agencies with the help of the SS and the SA, you can not describe them as measures for the extermination of the Jewish people.
That is impossible. I have told you that such excesses took place in all countries, before and afterwards. You only have to go to the east now where the Jews before 1938 and after 1938 were killed and maltreated in exactly the same manner. In this case it can only be a question of when the plan of the Reich Government to exterminate the Jewish people was put into effect, and as can be seen by the documents, I believe that it appeared for the first time in 1940 or '41. At that time we were engaged in a war, and the men who had this on their conscience did not have a bad idea in mind, because in peacetime, I do not think that they would have succeeded in carrying out such an insane policy.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other questions of this witness?
JUDGE MUSMANNO: I have two questions to put to the witness.
BY JUDGE MUSMANNO:
Q The first question rises out of the statement made during the direct examination, and the other just occurred to me now because of the answers you have made to the President Judge. You said that you had to choose between the Germans and the Jews. Were the Jews making war on Germany that you had to choose between the two?
A Yes.
Q The Jews had declared war on Germany, they were in the field against Germany, and therefore you had to exterminate them?
A From the moment on when I had to decide for or against the extermination of the Jews, at that time I had to choose for or against the Jewish people or Germany in the war. I could not express my attitude with regard to the extermination of the Jews individually then through the fact that in the war I said, "I do not like this sort of thing. Germany is engaged in war. I have been a soldier for thirty years, but I am going to leave my post." In that case I would have decided in favor of the Jewish people. At least that is my concept.
Q You have not answered the question. You said you had to decide between the Germans and the Jews, that suggests that the Jews were in some way making war upon Germany that you had to regard the Jews as enemies. Were the Jews in the field actually fighting Germany that you had to take them into custody, take them into gas chambers, execute them, and otherwise dispose of them?
AAbsolutely not.
Q Then you did not have to choose between Germany and the Jews.
A Of course I had to choose from the moment on when I would have left my post because I did not agree with this extermination policy. I would have deserted my post, and I would have deserted Germany.
Q You had to choose between following Hitler and his policy of exterminating the Jews and your conscience, because you admit that you did not approve of the extermination of the Jews. Therefore it violated your conscience. You had to choose between your conscience and Hitler, and you choose Hitler, is that right? Now answer that question.
A No, I can not follow you, Your Honor. That is incorrect. The way to ask the question is much simpler.
Q All right, you put the question.
A I was confronted by the question in times of war whether the extermination policy of the Hitler Government against the Jews was correct or not correct. I condemned it.
Q And how did you decide it?
A I condemned it.
Q Very well.
A I have condemned it.
Q Yes.
A If this had happened in peacetime I would have said, "I am not going along with this; I am going to resign from the office." That is what I would have done in peacetime. However, the matter was complicated through the war, and I have been a soldier for more than thirty years.
Q You told us that.
AAnd I had sworn an oath of allegiance to Hitler, and I had sworn an oath of allegiance to Germany. If I had left my post in times of war I would have violated that oath. The decision had to be made during the war. If I would have left for the Jews
Q It was not a question of leaving your post, you have admitted you condemned the policy of the extermination of the Jews. You admit that?
A Yes.
Q Even in wartime?
A Yes.
Q But you followed it nevertheless, even though you condemned it as a matter of conscience, did you?
A You can conclude so from the fact that I remained, but you have to ask yourself why I have remained. Well, I remained there because I had to fight for Germany as an old soldier. That is why I remained in my post. The situation would not have been complicated for me if we had moved in times of peace. It would have been a completely different situation. However, I had to make the decision in times of war, and I decided, for Germany, and I remained in the war on behalf of Germany. There were many things I did not like in the war.
Q Had the Jews declared war on Germany?
A What?
Q Had the Jews declared war on Germany?
A Your Honor, it has nothing to do with the question. We do not understand each other.
Q We understand your point. Just one more question. You stated in your direct testimony that you had witnessed one of the highaltitude experiments. That is correct, isn't it, at Dachau?
A Yes.
Q And that Himmler was with you while this experiment was taking place?
A Yes.
Q And that so far as you were able to determine, the experiment was entirely innocuous, no one was hurt?
A Yes.
Q But that you observed Himmler speaking to Rascher privately for ten minutes or so?
A Yes.
Q Then you learned later that death resulted from these high-altitude experiments?
A I only heard that here from the documents. It did not become known to me at the time that people were killed as a result of these highaltitude experiments. I did not find out about that at the time.
Q You did not follow up these experiments at all after this one view?
A No, I only watched them one time.
Q Your curiosity wasn't aroused, nor did you feel that your occupying an important position that you should ascertain just what was developing along this line?
A No.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: All right, that is all.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Court, I have three requests to make. First I respectfully request the Tribunal to expunge from the record the remark of the witness that Poland is persecuting the Jews today on the same grounds as I stated earlier, that this witness can not possibly have any knowledge of what is going on in Poland today. That it was an unsolicited remark.
THE PRESIDENT: That remark will be deleted because it does not relate to the issues.
MR. ROBBINS: Secondly, it would be more convenient for the Prosecution to begin cross-examination when Court convenes again. In other words, I would like to request the Tribunal to recess for the balance of the day and also to rule that this witness may not speak to anyone about the case between now and the time the Tribunal convenes again, since he is on cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: I rather think Security will take care of that, Mr. Robbins, more effectively than a warning by this Tribunal.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Court, I request that that would include all defense counsel. Your Honors, I think the witness is on cross-examination and that is not an unusual request to make once the witness is on cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: It is entirely new to me, Mr. Robbins. I have seen a good many hundred witnesses released on direct examination and turned loose in a large city to speak to whomever they liked. I did not know there was any duty to remain incommunicado. I doubt both the authority and the capacity of the Tribunal to enforce such an order if made.
MR. ROBBINS: I might say that Tribunal I has made such a ruling, and I respectfully refer to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Your motion that the Court recess until next Tuesday morning at nine-thirty will be granted. Your motion to direct the witness not to speak to anyone between now and that time will be denied.
THE MARSHAL: This Tribunal is in recess until 0930 Tuesday morning, the 27th of May.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 27 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 Nurnberg, Germany, on 27 May 1947, 0930-1630, 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.
OSWALD POHL - Resumed CROSS-EXAMINATION
DR. SEIDL (For Defendant Oswald Pohl): Your Honor, last Friday, shortly before the recess of this Tribunal, the Prosecution made the request that the Tribunal make a decision to the effect that the Defendant Oswald Pohl is no longer permitted to speak with other defense counsel or defendants. Thereupon, as usual, I applied, I requested the officer of the jail downstairs that the Defendant Oswald Pohl be presented before me on Friday, and I asked him that he be shown to me on Saturday morning. In both cases the Defendant Oswald Pohl was not brought to me, and I want this Tribunal to take knowledge of this fact, namely, that between the Prosecution and the defense there are apparently certain discrepancies as far as interpreting certain decisions of the court are concerned. According to my experience so far, the internal security only does not present the witness in such cases when the Prosecution gives them a certain order to that effect.
MR. ROBBINS: I assure Dr. Seidl that his failure to speak to the defendant was not the work of the Prosecution at all. It does not hinge upon the interpretation which the Prosecution gave to the Tribunal's decision. I understood the Tribunal's decision to be that defense counsel, all defense counsel, could speak to the defendant, and we had nothing to do with that.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I had no idea who it was that prevented you from talking to your client, Dr. Seidl. It wasn't the Tribunal and it wasn't the Prosecution. Who prevented you?
DR. SEIDL: The Tribunal, as I said before, did not grant the Prosecution's motion. In other words, it was this Tribunal's idea that I was not to be prevented to speak to this defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: That is correct.
DR. SEIDL: In spite of that fact, however, I did not have the possibility to see the defendant on Friday or on Saturday, to speak to him, although he was on the list of those defendants who had to be brought to me after that application.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that. I am trying to find out who prevented you from seeing your client. Who was it?
DR. SEIDL: Up to this present moment I could not find out, but according to my experience so far, it always happened in such manner that the prison administration of its own accord is not interested not to bring a defendant to me, and that this would only be done in such cases when there is a certain order to that effect by one of the competent authorities here.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal certainly did not expect this to happen, did not anticipate it, and it is not in accordance with the Tribunal's order. The motion of the Prosecution to prevent your seeing the defendant was denied, and I see no reason for this action having been taken. However, there is nothing I can do about it except from now on, except in the future. The Tribunal will see to it that you have access to your client and other counsel have access to the witness for the purpose of interviewing him.
MR. ROBBINS: Before beginning cross-examination of the witness, I should like to state for the record that the Prosecution has prepared a second clean-up memorandum of document books I through XX. There were certain discrepancies between our notes and the notes of the Secretary General which occurred from the first clean-up memorandum of the 12th of May, 1947.
I have checked all those discrepancies with the Secretary-General, and I think this new memorandum, which will replace the first one, will set the record straight. This is dated 19 May, 1947, and I should like to have permission to have it included in the record and extended in the record.
THE PRESIDENT: Such permission will be granted.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBINS:
Q. Witness, you understand that you are under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
A. Yes.
Q. From listening to your testimony during the last six days, in Court, I feel that an impression may have possibly arisen, no doubt inadvertently on your part, that you had nothing to do with concentration camps before 1942. In order to clear up this point I should like to go back to some of the earlier documents. Will you turn to Document No. NO-019A, in Book No. II, which is before you, Exhibit No. 24, on page 43 of the German, and page 32 in the English Document Books. This is a letter from Himmler to Hildebrandt, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you tell us what position Hildebrandt occupied on the date that this letter was written? It is 15 December 1939.
A. Hildebrandt was Higher SS and Police Leader of West Prussia. In other words, up there in the Stutthof area, Oberabschnitt Weichsel I think the name was.
Q. Will you turn to the last paragraph in that letter beginning with "Concentration camps may be established only with my approval," and read the remainder of that paragraph?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Will you read it aloud, please?
A. "Concentration camps may be established only with my approval", Himmler says. "Concentration camps existing at present are placed by me, with immediate effect, under the inspectorate of concentration camps in charge of which is at present SS Oberfuehrer Gluecks. The supervision of the economic matters of these institutions and their application to work is the responsibility of SS Gruppenfuehrer Pohl."
During the direct examination I have already drawn your attention to the fact that this decree of Himmler's, based on the fact that around the same time, or it might have been a little bit earlier, perhaps, I'll really say in 1938, the Economical enterprises, which at the time only existed in Dachau were subordinated to me. that is he reason why this decree originated. In other words, in the concentration camps which already existed there were workshops which exceeded their production and I had to administer that surplus production. At the time when they changed in character, the workshops in the camps, I only had something to do with them sofar as Inmates were concerned. I had no other connection with the camps then. My tasks were limited to only those things, namely, that these economical enterprises were to be taken care of in a commercial way, and to see to it that the necessary number of inmates sofar as they were being used could be used in the workshops, and actually were used, I mean, in the labor assignments, as it was decreed later on, that is, after 1942. They only intended to take care of these economical enterprises in the camp.
Q. When were you first given authority over the SS Industries in the concentration camps?
A. That was at that particular moment, of the establishment of the DEST, which was established in 1938 -- 1938 or '39, and then the DAW, which was the continuation of the Economic Enterprise in 1939. Both of them were incorporated into each other early in 1940 in the DWB, the German Economic Enterprises.
Q. Those industries used concentration camp inmates, is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. As a matter of fact, didn't your authority over the enterprises and workshops in concentration camps go back farther than 1938 -- earlier than 1938?
A. Well, the Economic Enterprises were subordinated as far as they were workshops, were subordinated to the camp commandant. I did state before that the workshops were first of all subordinated to the camp commandant, and after 1938, they were transformed into the Economic Enterprises sofar as I can recall, that was only the case in Dachau at first, and from that moment on they were under my authority.
Q. Do you wish to state that before 1938, or prior to 1938 you had no contact with the concentration camps whatever?
A. Prior to 1938, in a supervisory capacity, no. All that I can remember is that when they became economic enterprises they were subordinated to me, and I believe that was in 1938.
Q. Let's go back a little earlier and see if we can refresh your recollection, and see if we can get a clearer picture of the earlier administrative organization of the SS. You joined the SS in February 1934, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Immediately upon joining the SS, you were made Chief of the Administrative Office of the SS, or Verwaltungsamt-SS, is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. This was an Amt or Office within the SS Hauptamt, or the SS-Main Office, is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. The SS-Hauptamt, or Main Office is sometimes called the SS-Central Office, is that correct?
A. No, it was never called that way. The SS-Main Office, Hauptamt, was the oldest office in the Reichs Fuehrung-SS had a different name.
Q. Then the SS-Hauptamt was called the SS-Main Office, is that right?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. That was the main office under Himmler in which your Verwaltungsamt, or the administrative office was a part, is that correct?
A. Yes, the Administrative office-SS was an Amt in the SS Main Office.
Q. From February 1934 you were Chief of this Verwaltungsamt?
A. Yes, that is correct?
Q. I will ask you to describe this Verwaltungsamt, the organization of its office, and its different sub-offices or divisions, and the Verwaltungsamt, and the functions and duties of each of these sofar as you can remember. This is of the date of 1934 or '35.
A. The Verwaltungsamt-SS was separated into the Main Departments and departments. The main departments were the Treasury, the Personnel, and then perhaps the auditing offices. I don't know what further departments existed, but at that time it was a small office, and sofar as I remember the size of the space used, it was not too large. In 1935 when the first political units, the later verfuegungstgruppe, were set up, the new tasks instituted expansion of that particular office. There was also a separation between the departments, according to Party and Reich tasks. In other words, sofar as tasks were concerned, the Allgemeine-SS and the SS-Verfuegungsgruppe of the Reich, they were just a few and were rather small during the first few years, and it did not have too much of an extension of the office as a result.
Q. This was the organization which later became the Main Office, and still later became the WVHA, is that correct?
A. Yes, in other words, its Administrative Office shows assignment as an Amt in the SS-Main Office, after February 1939, after that it became the Hauptamt, and Budget and Buildings and Construction of the Main Office Administration and Economics, respectively. The fact that two Main Offices existed was to be shown by that; the separation only was caused by the fact, or due to the financing, which varied. The Office under Construction took care of the Reich means.
Q. We will come to that a little later. Right now we are speaking of the period of 1934 and '35. About how many employees were working in the Administrative Office SS when you became chief in 1934?
A. In 1934, I would say approximately 100 to 150 employees --but I couldn't tell for sure. I can only guess at it according to the office space used in that building. There could not have been more than a hundred to a hundred and fifty.
Q. I am going to show you a letter which you wrote on the first of October 1935, and see if that will help you refresh your recollection. See, if from that, you can give us a more complete description of the of the Verwaltungsamt as of that date.
In paragraph 1 it states that you are administrative chief of the SS. Is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. And then it says that this office embraces the following sections to be ranked as Main departments:
A. Well, you have to differentiate here between the agency or office of the administrative Office of the SS or chief central pay office administrator. That was my personal position with Himmler. And second the Administrative Office SS which I have mentioned: Administrative Chief of the SS. It dealt with budget measures and similar questions which, in other words, were beyond the competency of the SS Main Office. The dealing with those matters themselves also took place within the framework of the administrative office SS. In other words, it was something like a special emphasis laid on my personal assignment which I had with Himmler. The Administrative Office-SS in the SS Main Office is described here as I have stated it to be. In other words, the Judiciary Office, which is the Main Office V-I, Budget, the Main Office V-2, Accounting, No. 4, Main Section V-3, Clothing & Equipment, and 5, Main Department, Quarters, V-4 -
Q. Just a moment.
DR. GAWLIK (Counsel for the defendants Volk and Bobermin):
Your Honors, I have to raise an objection about the introduction of this document; namely, due to the following reasons: because not only it concerns the defendant Pohl but also all the other defendants. The Defense Counsel have no copy of this document although it has been ordered that they be notified twenty-four hours in advance and receive this. I have just received a copy of this document right now. And under those circumstances we cannot possibly examine the documents in advance.
THE PRESIDENT: The Prosecution is not offering this as an exhibit. It is submitted to the witness for the purpose of refreshing his recollection. Under those circumstances you are not entitled to have it twentyfour hours ahead of time.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Referring to paragraph 1, sub-paragraph I, SS-Central Payment Office; do you recall who was the chief of that office as of this date, October '35?
A. Well, this administrative office of the SS was incorporated into the administrative Office SS. in other words, it was not an authority in itself, and the Central Pay Office, which is mentioned here, ran parallel with the SS Main Treasury.
Q. Perhaps you didn't understand the question. Who was in charge of the SS Central Payment Office? Who was your deputy in charge of that office? Was it not the defendant Frank?
A. No, at that time I believe it was Sturmbannfuehrer Faist. Frank, as far as I can remember, did not work with the Pay Office. Frank was an expert in budget matters.
Q. Did you state that Frank was never in charge of the SS Central Payment Office?
A. I don't think so. Maybe that Frank was in charge of the Pay Office.
Q. Well, will you refer to paragraph 2, Roman II, sub-paragraph 2: Main Department V-i, Budget? Was Frank in charge of this office as of the date 1935?