A I don't know what Amtsgruppe A should have had to do with that matter. It is possible that they were sent to the administrative office of Amtsgruppe D, and that they were sent there on behalf of the Reich. However, I have never heard anything about that.
Q Now, undoubtedly they did go to Amtsgruppe D, but weren't the books also audited and funds kept by Amtsgruppe A as well?
AAmtsgruppe D had its own administrative office. I assume that these funds were accepted by that administrative office on behalf of the Reich. But that was a small activity which needed neither the collaboration of Amtsgruppe A nor mine.
Q I will ask you then to turn to Document Book No. 5
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Mr. Robbins, NO-400 that you just examined the witness about - that never was offered nor has it been given an exhibit number, has it?
MR. ROBBINS: That is correct, Your Honor. I should like to give that Exhibit No. 526 for identification.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q I ask you to turn to page 109 of the German Document Book, the Document 2189-PS. It is on page 96 of the English book.
WITNESS: Your Honors, this document is missing in my document book.
INTERPRETER: It is also missing in the Interpreter's document book.
MR. ROBBINS: Well, never mind. This is an order by Gluecks of Amtsgruppe D and it states that Pohl has ordered, effective immediately, that punishment by beating will be executed by prisoners in concentration camps for men.
Q Does that sound familiar to you?
DR. SEIDL (Counsel for the defendant Oswald Pohl): I object to the question until such time as the Prosecution furnishes the defendant with a copy of this document. In the document book which is in the hands of the defendant this document is not contained, and if the Prosecution wants to ask him a question concerning this document, then it seems appropriate that a copy of this document be submitted to the defendant.
I therefore want to suggest that the discussion of this question be postponed until such time as the Prosecution is able to furnish the defendant with a copy of this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this in one of the regular document books?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, Your Honor. I am sure that the document has been distributed in German; it just has not been inserted in the document book.
Q I will withdraw the question concerning the document and simply ask you if it is true that you have ordered that punishment by beating be executed by prisoners in concentration camp for men. Is that your order?
A I have never issued such an order.
Q Then, if Gluecks, chief of Amtsgruppe D, said that you did, he was wrong?
A Yes, that is quite possible. I did not occupy myself with disciplinary measures.
Q Will you turn to page 154 in the same book, to Document NO-2341? It is on page 149 of the English. This is a letter from you to Gluecks, and it reads as follows:
"We shall not tolerate the fact that only complaints about the bad quality of the clothing are made, and perhaps the inmate in question is even pitied because the poor fellow no longer has any shoes, instead of teaching him how to treat his clothing by giving him regularly a sound thrashing if necessary."
Did you order that inmates be beaten if they complained about their clothes and shoes?
A No; first of all, this is not work which originated from me and I could not imagine in what connection such an order should have been issued. It comes from Amt B-3. I can't remember that I have ever ordered such a measure to be carried out. Above all, in November 44 -
Q It is November, '44.
A Yes, November 44 -
Q Well, you signed the letter, didn't you?
A I can't see it from this document. It is a copy in extract form, and I can not remember ever having signed such a letter. In that case, I would have to look at the original.
Q You don't remember signing such a letter ordering that if inmates complain about their food and clothing that they should be beaten? That is what the letter says.
A No, I can't remember ever having written that, and I can not see any indication that I ever signed such a letter.
Q Well, I will produce the original and perhaps that will refresh your recollection.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you like until tomorrow morning to do that?
THE MARSHAL: This Tribunal is in recess until 0930 tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 28 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 28 May 1947, 0930, Justice Toms presiding
THE MARSHAL: All persons in the courtroom, please take their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal No. 2.
Military Tribunal No. 2 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 - Continued BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, would you turn to the document we were discussing last night in Book 5. Would you turn to the document we were discussing yesterday afternoon when the Court adjourned? Book 5, Document 2351. On page 154 of the German. Would you read that to the Tribunal.
Perhaps there is some mistake in the translation of in my interpretation of the document to you yesterday. Would you read it aloud, pleas?
A "Attention of the Chief of Amtsgruppe D, SS Gruppenfuhrer of inmates' clothes concentration camps. It is impossible to complain on the bad quality of clothes and to feel sorry for individual inmates because the poor fellow, for instance, would not have any more shoes left...instead of beating him regularly to teach him a lesson how he should deal with his things."
Signed "Pohl, SS Gruppenfuehrer, General of Waffen SS."
MR. ROBBINS: I know that Dr. Seidl is going to object on the ground that this is not yet in evidence. It was offered and then withdrawn. It was withdrawn because of the fact we did not have the original document. This was a part of an official governmental order investigating details by the U.S. Army. It was a part of that report.
I am just asking the witness if he can identify the document. If he says that he can't--I don't intend to go any further until we are able to find the original document.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: What exhibit number is that, Mr. Robbins, please?
MR. ROBBINS: It was not given one. One-forty-eight (a) 148 a has been reserved for it.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: I see.
DR. SEIDL: (Defense counsel for the defendant Oswald Pohl) At the time I objected to the submission of this document because it is an extract from a larger document, and the extract in itself is not suitable to form a suitable picture of the contents of the whole document.
For that reason, the Prosecution withdrew the document; and I object that any use be made of the document in cross-examination because it is not possible in cross-examination to form a proper picture of this exhibit as most of it is missing in the document book. The document submitted by the Prosecution shows at once that it is a very small extract from a very large document; and to use this small extract could easily lead to an erroneous picture of the whole document.
THE PRESIDENT: The document has not yet been offered in evidence. Mr. Robbins is seeking to have it identified, by the witness. You may ask the witness whether he can identify the document.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Can you identify this document, witness?
A No, it is not my document. It is signed by me in the form of a typewritten name, and I cannot recall seeing a document of that content.
Q Do you exclude the possibility that such a letter was written by you?
A It was not written by me, which I see from the initials that it came from Office Group B.
Q "B" or "D"?
A "B".
Q There is only one other question on this group of documents concerning conditions in concentration camps that I wish to ask you about.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Robbins, you do not offer this document then?
MR. ROBBINS: No, I do not at this time.
Q And that is in Book 13. I think it is not necessary for you to turn to it. Perhaps you recall it. It is a cable, NO-502, which is Exhibit 101. It is a cable which you sent to Himmler stating that the first transportations of Jews from Hungary show that about fifty percent of the Jews who were fed for work are women. Then you say: "Since there is not sufficient, adequate, pure female work available for this large number of women, we must put them to work for OT construction projects. Your approval is requested."
It is true that you requested approval--is it not--for the use of women on construction projects?
A Yes, I asked for permission for the use of Jewish labor.
Q And Jewish female labor?
A Yes.
Q Then Himmler sent you the following teletype:
"Of course Jewish women are to be made use of for labor. In this case, one has merely to provide a healthy diet; a pure diet of raw vegetables is important. Be sure not to forget the import of garlic from Hungary in sufficient quantity."
I would like to ask you, witness, it is very obscure to me. What is it that Himmler is referring to in the last sentence, requesting you to import garlic from Hungary for these Jewish women?
A Garlic is a vegetable and cannot be cultivate in Germany sufficiently.
Q And Himmler was interested in seeing that these Jewish woman had a proper diet of garlic, is that correct?
A Yes, certainly.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Don't you think that you can smell the meaning from that?
MR. ROBBINS: That was what I was getting at, Your Honor.
A That was meant to be supplementary food, and we tried to get whatever we could.
Q It was meant as sarcasm, was it not, on Himmler's part?
A No, not at all. He meant it quite seriously, not at all sarcastically.
Q Then up to date we have covered the precursors and predecessors of the WVHA; the organization of the Verwaltungsamt from 1934 to 1939, and then the Main Office Building and Construction and Economy and Administration; or the WVHA from 1939 to 1942; and the organization; and the organization of the WVHA. And the part that each of these organizations played in the concentration camps, and their support of the concentration camps in the use of innate labor. There are only three other subjects that I would like to discuss with you. They are first, the SS industries 1039 and the part that Amtsgruppe W played in the SS industries; and the positions of the other defendants in the other Amtsgruppen. And, thirdly, the subject matter dealt with in the last document books; namely, Action Reinhardt.
Turning first to the SS industries, I have handed the witness and placed on the desk of the Tribunal Exhibit 383, Document NO-1039. This is already in evidence as Exhibit 383. It is in document book 14, page 19 of the English book, and page 13 of the German book. Prosecution considers this one of the basic documents in the case, as far as an understanding of the various SS industries is concerned.
This document gives the names of the larger SS industries, does it not, witness?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q And it gives a fairly clear picture of their positions in Amtsgruppe W, does it not?
A Yes.
Q Will you look at the chart that is on the wall from which your affidavit was made, and tell us if there are any errors in the picture as far as Amtsgruppe W is concerned, other than the fact that, as you said yesterday, there was no Chief of Staff W.
A The offices are quite correctly listed here.
Q Do you have the chart which is attached to the basic information brief from which this chart was made, the wall chart was made?
A No, I have not got it.
Q I wonder if any of the defense counsel have this basic chart in German...
Q Will you look at this chart which is in somewhat more detail than the wall chart and see if it gives a fair picture of Amtsgruppe W and the position of the industries?
A Well that is the chart which I corrected myself.
Q And it gives a correct picture?
A Yes, quite.
Q First, I would like to take up the functions of Staff W, which is the first division listed in Exhibit 383. The person who was called Chief of Staff W, whether or not he was chief, was Baier, was he not? Baier was called the Chief of Staff W, is that correct?
A Yes, from 1943 onwards.
Q And he replaced the Defendant Hohberg in that position?
A Yes.
Q Now I would like for you to tell us what functions the Defendant Baier performed as so-called Chief of Staff W.
A Baier dealt with auditing of all the branches which belonged to the German Economic Enterprises, the DWB, and immediately after joining he started to revise -- to build up, rather -- the Revision Department and to check up on the various enterprises. That was his task in Staff W.
Q Baier has said in previous interrogations and testimony that he had supervision over all questions concerning plant management and industries, is that correct?
A No, he had nothing to do with the management. That I would look after with the managers of the various enterprises themselves and and Baier had nothing to do with that side of it. Baier was first of all the auditing expert, because that was in accordance with his training and experience.
Q Did he have any phase of supervision over any of the W industries? Did he exercise any sort of supervision whatever?
A No.
Q I would like to read to you from part of your prior testimony which was sworn to and which was taken on the 4th of June, 1946. You were asked by Dr. Kempner:
"Did you have banking connections with the Reichsbank?
"Answer: With the Reichsbank and Bank of German Labor Oberfuehrer Baier could give you exact information about that. He was in charge of the holding companies under me. All our enterprises were compounded in a holding company, the DWB, and they were managed by Oberfuehrer Baier, -They were managed by Oberfuehrer Baier--and he has information about all their financial dealings."
A I said yesterday that these were my first interrogations a year ago when the whole picture and the various details were less clear to me than they are today. At that time Baier, when we received credit from the Bank of German Labor, was not with us and he could know nothing about the negotiations about the credit. As for the negotiations of the Reichsbank, Baier did not carry them or and the testimony I made a year ago, in the affidavits which followed I had to correct and that also concerns this detail. I was asked about all sorts of things down to the smallest bank accounts and I was unable to see the thing. The picture was less clear to me at that time than it is today and as I pictured it in the later affidavit.
Q As you told us time after time in answer to the questions to explain you couldn't recollect various details of the organizations. I would like to know how it is that your memory is better on certain of these details than it was a year or more ago when you were first interrogated on these questions?
A That is not an unusual thing that certain details with which I have special memories should have stuck more to my powers of memory. I haven't forgotten everything, but from these many subjects on which I worked, I have not been able to remember every detail. Many details, now that I have been thinking about them for a year, have become clearer to me than they were a year ago.
Q Then you state today that Baier had no supervisory power whatsoever over any industries in Amtsgruppe W?
A He had no supervision over the management.
Q I should like to read you from Baier's affidavit which he had given and which we have put in evidence and which he swore to. He says that he had supervision of the directors of the DWB in their financial and other assignments, as well as generally all questions concerning plant management. Now this was sworn to by the Defendant Baier on the 21st of January of this year. Do you want to tell the court that Baier doesn't know what his own duties were in Amtsgruppe W?
A That is the correct picture inasmuch as through his auditing he came into contact with these questions, but that was not primarily part of this task; as an auditor and an accountant, he had to deal with these questions. That he was aware of them I have no doubt, but I don't think Baier would wish to say that himself that he had to deal with questions of plant management and he would have any influence on them.
Q He doesn't confine his statement merely to auditing in plant management. He says he had general supervision over all questions concerning plant management.
A That is out of the question. After all between Baier and the enterprises there were the managers of the enterprises with whom I had discussions of the questions myself, and then, of course, the supervisors themselves. I cannot see where Baier could come in there.
Q Did you ever discuss questions of plant management of any of the industries with Baier?
A No questions of plant management. I understand by that, questions of auditing procedures, how enterprises might be extended, and so forth. The operational questions I would not discuss with Baier. I would discuss them with the managers.
Q Did you ever discuss with him the use of inmate labor in any of the concentration camp industries?
A That happened hardly at all. I don't think so. I don't know I would discuss the question of labor assignment of inmates with Baier.
Q Did you say you never discussed questions of the use of inmate labor or that you discussed them only infrequently?
A Not very much. The question was probably touched upon when we had to decide on wage scales and the organization. The question of assignment of inmates would be discussed generally, but I cannot recall that I and Baier would discuss questions which would concern the assignment of inmates in certain enterprises, because these were questions which would concern only the managers and the directors, but, of course, questions of labor assignment of inmates would come into his task and thereby touched upon wage scales, expenditures, overheads, and therefore upon his activity too. I, therefore, cannot say that Baier would discuss the assignments of inmates, but it is a different pair of shoes to say that the use of inmates in certain enterprises or the effect of that assignment on wages scales and other matters which were more a matter of a chartered accountant.
Q As a matter of fact, you told Baier, did you not, to compile a list of all of the industries in Amtsgruppe W, which used concentration inmates for the purpose of discussing the question as to how much the inmates should receive, or, rather, how much the industries should pay for the use of inmate labor. You did that, didn't you?
A Yes, we discussed that.
Q You talked about the use of inmate labor when you discussed that, didn't you?
A Yes, certainly of course.
Q There is no doubt in your mind that Baier knew which of the industries used inmate labor?
A That he knew very well.
Q I would like to refer to Exhibit 65 in Book 3, which is a letter from Baier to May, who was Chief of Office W-4 and in this letter dated 19 January 1944 Baier tells May that you have approved the changes and organizations of the DAW resulting from the conversion of the forced labor camps in the District of Lublin, which we discussed yesterday.
For the court's information, this is on page 78 of Document Book 3. It is on page 80 of the German. It is NO-1036. Baier reports that the forced labor camps have been converted into concentration camps in Lublin and that the DAW might establish its headquarters at Cracow. Did you discuss this question with Baier, the conversion of the camps in the East into concentration camps.
A. I'm sorry; may I have the document number again?
Q. 1036. It is on Page 82 of the German, Book III. Do you find it, 1036?
A. Yes, I have it now.
Q. You discussed the conversion of the camps in the East and the concentration camps with Baier, did you not?
A. I don't believe so because what we are concerned with here is not the conversion of the camps but the measures resulting therefrom regarding the establishment of the Central Administration in Cracow. I cannot recall that I and Baier discussed the previous history there; that is to say, the conversion of the forced labor camps in the East, because Baier was not interested in this. It was not part of his tasks.
Q. You told him that it was going to happen, did you not? Just yes or no.
A. Yes.
Q. You told him afterwards that it had happened, did you not?
A. Yes, I told him that, yes. As a result of the change in the East, it was advisable to have a Central Administration so that we need not negotiate concerning various enterprises from Berlin. That was the basic idea of this discussion, which was the consequence of the measures which had previously been taken in which Baier, however, had not taken part.
MR. ROBBINS: I shall point out to the court later the close connection between this document and the extermination of the Jews in Action Reinhardt.
Q. For the moment I would like merely to ask the witness, Baier went ahead and arranged for SS industries to be established in these camps, did he not?
A. No, Baier had nothing to do with that because after all they existed when he came. Baier joined us only in August 1943; and after that date no new SS industries were instituted in camps. They were all in existence already.
Q. The DAW didn't have its headquarters in these Lublin camps before Baier wrote this letter, did it?
A. These works were here before Baier, before August 1943 because in February 1943 we founded the Osti. The Osti Works were there.
Q. In this letter Baier tells the Chief of W-IV that he can go ahead and establish the Central Administration of the DAW; that it can be established at Cracow, and states that Mohinkel will be appointed head of the Central Administration in Cracow.
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. He did work out the details of establishing the headquarters at Cracow, did he not?
A. I believe that is Baier's work, but I am not quite sure of the details. This is a Central Administration in order to have all the plants, including those from the DAW which existed in the Government General, made independent of Berlin. For purely commercial reasons this was necessary.
Q. Just answer the following question with yes or no. This goes beyond the field of auditing work, does it not?
A. You cannot say that like that. From that Central Administration a number of simplifications would result concerning commercial matters such as bookkeeping; and I always regarded these to be connected with each other.
Q. You stated that Hohberg carried out similar functions to Baier. Is it correct that Hohberg proceed Baier in Staff W?
A. Yes. Well, Hohberg did roughly the same things as Baier did as an auditor and accountant.
Q. Before we leave Baier, I should like to ask you, when did you first meet Baier?
A. I knew Baier in my navy days.
Q. When did he first work under your supervision?
A. In 1937 when he left the navy and joined the SS. Then he was in charge of the administration school; and from that time on he worked under me.
Q. When did he first join the Administrative Office of the SS?
A. He came to Berlin, I believe, in August 1943.
Q. Do you know whether he was drafted into the SS or whether he joined voluntarily?
A. No, at that time he was transferred from the Navy to the SS. This was an order, and I was at the back of this transfer.
Q. Coming to the defendant Hohberg, when did you first meet Hohberg?
A. I met Hohberg in 1940.
Q. When did he first work under your supervision?
A. I believe in the same year, in 1940.
Q. Was he under your supervision in the Budget and Construction and was that not the Main Office of the WVHA?
A. No, Economy and Administration that was called. Budget and construction was the Reich Sector; and the economic enterprises were the Party Sector. Service and Economy; and it was there that Hohberg worked under me.
Q. He worked under your supervision in the Main Office of WVHA administration and Economy?
A. In the Main Office Administration and Economy; and after 1942 he was in the WVHA. In 1940 the Main Office was called Administration and Economy; and after 1942 it was called WVHA.
Q. Can you state whether Hohberg was engaged in carrying out any kind of supervision over the auditing, finance, and taxation matters of the DWB?
A. Hohberg was my auditor for the DWB or for all branches affiliated to it and also my consultant in tax matters. He had a contract with us as an auditor.
Q. Did he have any power of supervision over any phase of the SS industries?
A. No, he had no powers of supervision. His was a pure office activity in Berlin.
Q. Did you ever discuss the utilization of inmate labor with Hohberg?
A. No.
Q. You know, don't you, that Hohberg also engaged in the negotiations concerning the so-called wage scale for inmate labor as shown by the documents in evidence?
A. Of course, Hohberg knew that inmates were used in certain enterprises; but he had nothing to do with labor allocation for these inmates because those questions were known in Staff W; and when auditing and accounting was done, it became clear.
Q. Certainly there was no one who worked in Staff W who didn't know that inmate labor was being employed on an extensive scale in the SS industries; isn't that correct?
A. He knew it, yes.
Q. He says in his affidavit that he arranged to have Volk transferred from the Dest. Do you know anything about that?
A. I'm afraid I didn't follow that.
Q. Hohberg says in his affidavit that he arranged to have the defendant Volk transferred from the Dest. Do you know anything about that?
A. Volk as far as I know was never a member of the Dest. I do not know what he means by this. I do not know anything about the fact that Volk should have belonged to the Dest at any time.
Q. Your answer is that you do not know anything about it?
A. Yes.
MR. ROBBINS: Would you turn to the first document in Book 14? My copy of this document seems to be missing. Does the translator have an extra copy of this document?
THE INTERPRETER: What document number is it, Mr. Robbins?
MR. ROBBINS: It is NO-551.
THE INTERPRETER: Yes, we do.
MR. ROBBINS: I am sorry, Your Honor, I am referring to the wrong document. It is in Book 15, and it is Document NO-1035. Do you have it?
A Yes, I do.
Q Will you tell the Tribunal what this letter is?
A That is a suggestion from Dr. Hohberg coming to me concerning the working hours, and wage scale of the inmates.
Q Incidentally, while we are on this point. You testified on direct examination that private industries when they were to receive concentration camp labor should not pay less for inmates than they did for free labor. That their incentive in using concentration camp inmates was not to save money but merely because of manpower shortage. That is not true, is it?
A Yes, that is quite correct.
Q It is not true, is it, that private industry paid less for inmate labor than they did for free labor?
A Private enterprises, so far as I am informed, had to pay the same wages for inmate which they would pay for the same type of free worker.
Q What does the first sentence in the letter mean then: "The advantage of low prisoners' daily wages at thirty pennings will become evident in the workshops employing prisoners - " and so on?
A Well, the W-Enterprises of the SS had a very different history. As they had been established with the Reich and foreign funds only, in the first year of their existence they first of all did not pay any money out at all. Later on very low wages were paid, and later still a bit more. Soon it was possible to see what these enterprises produced because an immediate wage scale adjustment on the wages of the free labor would have resulted only in the expenditures being met by taking up new credits.
Q Just a moment, just a moment. Will you turn to the next document there in the book, which is Exhibit No. 406. Dr. Hohberg is writing to Maurer, Amtsgruppe-D, and he is referring to profits which the SS Industry - this is the second part of the document.
He is referring to profits which the SS Industry made in the utilization of Jewish prisoners enterprises at Lublin. Do you see that? It is Hohberg's letter to Maurer. It is the second document in this book, which is Book 15.
A Yes, I have it.
Q He is referring to profits and he said: "It is therefore possible to determine for any chosen period exactly what profits were derived by the employment of Jewish prisoners," and he refers to the use of Jewish inmates at Lublin?
A Yes.
Q Will you turn to Document NO-736, Exhibit No. 467. This is a memorandum by Dr. Wenner, and he says: "There are two reasons for the fact that the SS Industry makes such high profits. One of them is that in many W-Enterprises most of the workers are prisoners," and it states "The money which the enterprises have to pay to the Reich for each prisoner does not on the average correspond to the work done by a prisoner. If, for example, the prisoner were replaced by a civilian worker the enterprise would normally have to pay a larger sum" That is true, isn't it. It is obvious from this document that private industry had to pay loss for concentration camp inmates than it did for free labor? Just answer the question, yes or no, and not discuss it at great length.
A Private industry did not pay less for inmates than for free labor workers.
Q When Hohberg said that they did, and when Dr. Wenner said they did, they did not know what they were talking about, is that correct?
A I believe that we are confusing things here.
Q Just answer the question. They are wrong when they say that industry -private industry - used to pay less for concentration camp inmates. They were not correct. That is to be answered, yes or no?
A I can not answer a question like that, I maintain that private enterprises paid the same wages for inmates as they did for free workers, but not the SS enterprise.