THE MARSHAL: Tribunal No. 2 is again in session.
OSWALD POHL - Resumed REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. Witness, the prosecution at the end of the cross examination introduced the printed document before you, NO-1225, which is exhibit No 546 for Identification. I already asked you during the direct examination what kind of political activities you performed since the last war and you mentioned the name of Volksbund in which you were active. I ask you now, Witness, was that the Volksbund Uwe Jens Lornsen, Fighting League for German National Rights, in Kiel?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that the association which you had in mind?
A. Yes.
Q. At that time in November, 1943, you did not march towards Feldherrnhalle because you were prevented from doing so for the reason contained in this certificate, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Nor did you at any time after that during your interrogations by the prosecution, deny the fact that from that time on you were a convinced national socialist?
A. I was convinced of the good points of National Socialism and I believed in it strongly. That is at all times I believe in National Socialism and I would have marched at Munich, if I would have had the opportunity to do so.
Q. The prosecution then introduced a certain document, NO-1228, Exhibit No. 547. This is an opinion of the 14th of May, 1935. I ask you now, witness, did you know this opinion of Gruppenfuehrer Wittze, who is mentioned as Berger here by mistake. Did you know anything about this opinion before it was introduced in the cross examination?
A. No, as far as I know, I saw it here for the first time.
Q. By order of Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler as of the 3rd of March, 1942, effective the 1st of May, 1942, the Inspectorate was incorporated into the WVHA as Amtsgruppe D. I ask you now, witness, what did you have to do as Chief of the WVHA and what did you have to do prior to that with the administrative situation in the camps?
A. As Chief of the WVHA prior to that time the Economic Enterprises in the concentration camps were subordinated to me. Prior to that time I had nothing to do with the administration of the camp proper.
Q. What did your activity limit itself to after the incorporation of the Inspectorate into the WVHA with reference to those camps?
A. After the incorporation according to Himmler's task, I dealt with the labor assignment of the inmates as the highest authority.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO): Dr. Seidl, hasn't this material been covered rather fully?
DR. SEIDL: Your Honor, during cross examination this question was dealt with; and I have no further questions on this problem. However, I should like to have this point clarified; and I think it is rather important to do so.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO): It seems to me that on the direct examination we spoke about the fact that he had charge of labor allocation; that it was mentioned in cross examination. I don't know what further feature there is to illuminate.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q On the 24th and 25th of April 1942 you called all camp commandants and work shop managers for a conference in the WVHA in Berlin, as can be seen from Exhibit Number 40 of the prosecution, Document R-129. Did you at any time after that ever call a meeting of the concentration camp commandants?
A No.
Q The prosecution during the cross examination put before you Exhibit Number 60, which is in Document Book Number 3 of the prosecution. This is Document NO-1290, and it is a letter to the camp commandants of the 22nd of November 1943. It deals with the working time for the inmates; and I shall put this document before you now and ask you what can be seen from the file notes with reference to who set up this letter, and so forth.
A The letter was drawn up by Amt D-II, which is Labor Allocation of Inmates, and it was then signed by me.
Q In other words, it was drawn up by the Inspector of the concentration camps and apparently submitted to you for your signature? Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Was the procedure very often used in the same way?
A It occurred once in a while, perhaps even quite often, that Court No. II, Case No. 4.Gluecks during his weekly conference submitted drafts to me for which he wanted my signature because the contents of the letters concerned general instructions.
It occurred once in a while that these drafts which were submitted to me through those channels were signed; and I myself in Berlin and my staff did not have any experts for concentration camp matters.
Q During your examination you mentioned repeatedly the outside camps of the concentration camps, and you called them labor camps. Did these labor camps have anything to do with the labor camps in which the voluntary foreign laborers were billeted or lodged and which in part were under the German Labor Front? I ask you now, Witness, what was the difference between these two types of labor camps?
A They were two groups which were entirely separated from each other and which had no connection or contact with each other. Although they both had the same name, labor camp, they had nothing to do with each other. The labor camps of the concentration camps were outside camps of the concentration camps and in the enterprises where a large number of inmates worked. That is where these inmates were billeted. These outside camps of the concentration camps were under the control of the commandant of the main camp who had put the inmates at the disposal of the enterprises. Economically speaking, they were under the enterprises, so to speak. The labor camps in which the Sauckel workers lived were, generally speaking, only lodging camps from which the workers could move about freely. They could come and go as they pleased. All those workers who had come to the Reich through the Sauckel organization were either channeled to small workshops or peasants, where they worked and lived; or then they were channeled to those lodging or billeting camps which were supervised by either the enterprises or the German Labor Front. That was something entirely different from the outside camps of the concentration camps. They had nothing to do with each other.
Q The prosecution during cross examination submitted to you Court No. II, Case No. 4.Exhibit 181.
It is in Document Book Number 4. In this connection you were asked how many concentration camps there were. In order to eliminate doubt and particularly since there apparently has been a mistake in the translation, I ask you again, how many concentration camps were there in the Reich at the end of the war?
A Towards the end of 1944 I believe there were thirteen concentration camps, that is, main camps, and approximately 500 outside camps, labor camps, in other words.
Q In this document 185 labor camps are mentioned. Do I have to assume from your answer that these 185 labor camps were again distributed amongst the enterprises or can be distributed amongst the enterprises?
A These 185 labor camps or rather outside camps were located near the enterprises.
Q As Exhibit 528 the prosecution introduced documents which refer to Lebensborn. I did not receive a copy of this document as yet. You will recall this document, however; and I ask you again what was the relationship between the Lebensborn and you with reference to the WVHA?
THE PRESIDENT: He answered this same question at great length, and now your question is, "Say it again."
DR. SEIDL: If the Tribunal is of the opinion that the defendant has already had the possibility of giving an exhaustive answer to this question during the cross examination, then I am ready to withdraw this question.
THE PRESIDENT: Don't you think he answered it fully?
DR. SEIDL: I am not of the opinion that he has had the possibility of explaining the reason why he no longer recalls in this document of 1938 in the cross examination and why he first of all stated that he had no further connections with the Lebensborn than any other SS member.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if there is something new that you want him to testify to, of course he may do so; but there is no purpose in just Court No. II, Case No. 4.having him go over the long story of the Lebensborn again.
We remember it very well.
DR. SEIDL: I shall not ask him about the whole story of the Lebensborn. I shall just limit myself to asking him what kind of activity he exercised as a member of the Board of Supervisors.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, but we shall stop him if he starts to grinding the old wheat all over again.
Q.- Witness, what were your functions as a member on the supervisory board of the Lebensborn, and how could it be explained that you could no longer recall any of this before or after the introduction of this document?
A.- When this document was introduced I no longer knew that once upon a time I had been on the supervisory board, or in the Lebensborn. Nor can I recall that as such I had any other activities but to read a report of the Lebensborn once or twice a year. This activity was so far removed from the remainder of my tasks that I could not carry it out. At the same time I could not recall what the economic connections were between the Lebensborn and the WVHA. The Lebensborn did not belong to the WVHA but belonged to the Main Office Personnel Staff, and later on I only recall that they had Partschenderf, which was the only estate which they had bought through a special contract, or rather sale to the German Research Office for food, but even here I could not recall any further points of contact or connections of the two, but the entire activity was so slight and remote that I really had no reasons to make such statements to this Tribunal.
Q.- The Prosecution during the cross examination introduced a new document put before you, that was Document NO-1954, which was provided with Prosecution's Exhibit No. 529. This is a letter which you wrote on 21 September 1942, to the defendant Dr. Hohberg, and it deals with the new regulations of the Economic Experts on your staff. It says there that this agency is to be called in future. The Economic Inspector with the Chief of SS-WVHA. Apparently, you no longer recall this incidence, and I ask you why you no longer recall this matter?
A.- This decree was a spontaneous measure which I had taken at the time. I doubt even if there had been any discussion with my Economic Experts about that. In any case it disappeared entirely after that, and I did not see it in any other organizational chart, or any document, so I must have deducted from those facts that those measures were not carried out. From the development later on my opinion is corrobarated, for these Economic inspectors were substituted by the auditors, who were sent to the enterprises two or three months later. That was a new regulation, but this position of an Economic Inspector, I could no longer recall because it has never become effective, because I would have found it in an organizational chart, or a document if it had become a reality.
Q.- What was the influence of the WVHA could have over the release of the inmates from the concentration camps, and what were the principles of which the business managers left themselves a guide when sponsoring such request?
A.- The WVHA also had to write a sponsoring letter for their inmates, or, rather make an application of the Reich Security Main Office for their inmates whom they wanted to have released, so long as the inmates were in the enterprises in the camp, and they were exclusively under the influence of the RSHA. The business managers, of course, were interested in having these inmates secured for their enterprises, who had been skilled in their jobs, and were skilled workers and in contrast to the private industry represented their key personnel. They could only do it, however, if these inmates were removed from the grip of the RSHA, and this could only be done by having these inmates released in order to use them as free workers immediately afterwards for the enterprises, and, that actually occurred in very many, many cases.
I myself can recall two specific cases, personally, in which former inmates even received leading positions in these enterprises. One of them became a business manager for a larger plant with a monthly income of one-thousand marks, and the other one was Chief gardener in Dachau with approximately two-hundred marks wages. Both of them had free living quarters, and they could have their families, and they did have their families with them. That I know also that these enterprises also had put at their disposal the many released inmates of family settlements. That was the only way for the enterprises to keep these leading personnel, by removing them from the grip of the RSHA, and to be able to use them for the enterprises proper.
Q.- The prosecution during the cross examination, introduced Exhibit No. 498, shown to you. That is Document Book 20, Document no. NO-1611. It is on page 1 of Document Book No. 20. It says here in paragraph 3 literally, and I quote: "It will be our endeavor to have these Jewish laborers changes for Poles, and to change these small Jewish enterprises into large Jewish enterprises, in the Eastern part in the General Government, and there some day according to the Fuehrer's wishes they are to disappear," and of quotation. This letter of Himmler's is dated 9 October 1942, and you also received a copy of this letter. I am asking you now, witness, when you read that letter, in particular the last paragraph, what did you think at the time?
THE PRESIDENT: That same question was asked of him, and I remember the answer, at great length. Don't you re member it, too?
DR. SEIDL: Yes, I remember the answer. However, I believe that he should be more precise in answering, particularly, in reference to the fact that during the cross examination a whole series of documents were put before him from which one could draw a conclusion that he already at the time had a good idea of this particular sentence in the last paragraph of this letter.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, certainly, we don't want to put any obstacles in your way, but there does not seem to be any good reason for asking him the same question which he answered at great length before. If there is something particular you want to ask him, there is no objection.
DR. SEIDL: Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Your present question is, what did you think when you read that last paragraph. That calls for a twenty minute speech which we already heard.
DR. SEIDL: Your Honor, I am under the impression that the Tribunal fears that my re-examination will take too long, and to assuage this fear, I would like to state here that the whole re-direct examination will take a whole half on hour at the most, and that all these fears, so far as I am concerned, are unfounded.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not a question of how long you are going to take. It is a question of how much time you are going to waste. You can take a week if you want to, provided the material that you are asking for is new material and not simply of old material gone over again. We are in no hurry, Dr. Seidl, provided we are going somewhere.
DR. SEIDL: I shall withdraw this question.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q.- The Prosecution during cross examination introduced document NO-2360, which was provided with the identification number 531. This is a trip ticket for a truck from Auschwitz to Dessau, and dated 30 July 1943 from the concentration camp of Auschwitz. In connection with this document I would like to ask the witness, did you yourself, or was it the WVHA, at the time have anything to do with the requisitioning or bringing out the Zyklon?
A. I myself never had anything to do with the procurement of Zyklon, and I never knew anything about it, nor do I know anything about the fact that any office of the WVHA in Berlin dealt with the procurement of Zyklon.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Didn't your auditing office have to audit the bills for the Zyklon?
A. No. I don't know anything about it. I never saw any bills for Zyklon.
Q. I did not ask about yourself, but weren't the bills for supplies in the concentration camps audited in the WVHA?
A. I don't know that, and I don't believe so.
Q. What about Amtsgruppe D?
A. Well, I don't know if Amtsgruppe D procured the Zyklon.
Q. Not procured the Zyklon, but --
A. I don't know that, nor do I know anything about it.
Q. Well, who ordered the Zyklon in the first place?
A. I don't know that, Your Honor.
Q. Who received it in the concentration camps?
A. I assume that the camp commandant received it.
Q. And who ordered it paid for?
A. I don't know how it was paid for.
Q. And who checked or audited the bill or the invoice?
A. I don't know that.
Q. Well, then, your answer is that tremendous quantities of this poison came into the concentration camps that were under the WVHA, you don't know who ordered it, who received it, who directed it to be paid for, or who paid for it?
A. Yes, that is correct. I know nothing about it.
Q. And you don't even know that it was over used?
A. I did not know it at the time, no.
Q. Did anybody in the WVHA know these things?
A. I don't think so.
Q. Hundreds and hundreds of cans of poison gas came into the concentration camps, and neither you nor anybody in WVHA knew how it got there, nor who ordered it, nor who paid for it, nor what it was used for?
A. Your Honor, all these measures-
Q. Is that true?
A. I am convinced that in the WVHA nobody knew anything about it.
MR. ROBBINS: Your Honor, I believe that the defendant's answer to Dr. Seidl's question was not responsive and that either the question should he answered responsively or the answer should be stricken out. Dr. Seidl asked if the defendant or any part of his organization had anything to do with the procuring of Zyklon gas and referred him to Exhibit 531. The defendant's answer was, I had nothing to do with the procuring of the gas. If he looks at the exhibit which his attorney directed him to, it shows that the chief of Amtsgruppe D signed the permission to carry the gas to Auschwitz. I think that the defendant should answer that part of his attorney's question concerning the remainder of his organization and not merely his own personal activity.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. Witness, did you understand this question?
A. Your question?
Q. No, the question that was put to you by the Prosecution just now.
A. Well, the chief of Amtsgruppe D did not ask for permission from me in order to transport this Zyklon from Auschwitz to Dessau, a long trip.
Q. The chief of Amtsgruppe D, Gluecks, didn't he ever discuss this matter with you?
A. No.
Q. Do you have any indications that Gluecks knew of the whole action?
A. I did not discuss the facts with Gluecks. I didn't know.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. That is not the point. Gluecks knew about it, didn't he?
A. Yes, Gluecks was the one that gave the permission for this trip, but he did not discuss these things with me.
Q. But you told me a few minutes ago that nobody in the WVHA know anything about Zyklon, but Gluecks knew about it, certainly?
A. I said that neither I nor any other member of the WVHA in Berlin knew of it, but what Gluecks knew about it in Oranienburg, I do not know, Your Honor. All I know is that he possibly wrote out this permission for travel. In other words, he was the one that permitted this truck. What he knew apart from that, I do not know because he never discussed that point with me.
Q. Well, Amtsgruppe D was part of the WVHA, wasn't it?
A. Amtsgruppe D was part of the WVHA. However, it was out in Oranienburg and not in my house.
Q. Well, it was a part of the organization. I don't mean that it was right on your desk, but it was a part of the WVHA.
A. Yes, ever since 1942 it was a part of the WVHA.
Q. And you were chief of the WVHA?
A. Yes, I was chief of the WVHA.
Q. And Gluecks in Amtsgruppe D knew about Zyklon.
A. Yes. All I know is that he permitted him to take that truck. What he did apart from that or what he knew about Zyklon, I do not know.
Q. Well, he didn't think it was a food, did he?
A. I don't know that. We never discussed the fact. I found out that Zyklon was also used against vermin in other camps.
Q. "Vermin" in the same sense that Himmler used the word?
A. I don't know that, Your Honor.
Q. You remember hearing about Himmler's reference to "Jews and lice, don't you?
A. Well, maybe that was his thought about it. Maybe these were his thoughts.
Q. Did you ever hear his speech about it?
A. Yes, of course, I heard his speech in Posen.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. You just stated that in all the camps Zyklon was used for delousing. Don't you think that Gluecks could have been of the same opinion after he issued the permit for the trip that this Zyklon was used for the same purpose?
A. That is possible.
Q. The Prosecution, then, during cross examination submitted a document to you which you yourself signed. It is Document NO 2571 and received Exhibit Number 534 for Identification. With reference to paragraph (3) of this affidavit, I ask you now, witness, when did it become clear to you for the first time that at least part of the valuables originated from Action Reinhardt the extermination program for the Jews?
A. I personally received the first clear picture from all the documents of the economic last check-up from Globecnick, and that was in January 1944, I assumed that the entire extermination program was concluded with this.
THE PRESIDENT: Don't you remember this, Dr. Seidl? Don't you remember this? I questioned the witness at great length. January 1944 was stated a dozen times. Now, go ahead; if you have got something now, go a head, but don't tell me about January 1944 again.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. The Prosecution then showed you an affidavit which was also taken up in 1946. That is Document NO 4-45 PS, which received Exhibit No. 536. I shall put this document before you now, witness, and I shall ask you how this affidavit was written up, what the circumstances were, and if you yourself still maintain the statements contained in that affidavit.
A. I no longer stick to this affidavit today to the full extent after having studied all these documents and also after having been in solitary confinement. I can recognize at the present moment that there are objective mistakes in here. About a year ago when I signed this affidavit, together with many others.
I was taken from one interrogation to another, and upon my arrival here at Nurnberg, I was under both a physical and a mental depression. On the day before I was transferred from Lendorf to Nurnberg, I was in British custody, I was badly mistreated. Between six and seven in the evening, the guards broke into my cell-approximately six or eight men--and they tied me to a chair, although I had been tied prior to that, and then-
MR. ROBBINS: I'd like, before we hear this history, to find out what relation it has with the affidavit. The affidavit was signed on 15 July 1946, and so far he has not told us when this occurrence took place.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, he may continue his answer.
A. These mistreatments took place on the 31st of May, that is to say, fourteen days prior to that.
THE PRESIDENT: When?
A. '46, 1946, that is fourteen days prior to that. I was tied to that chair and two men held my head behind the back of the chair while another smeared my face with a burning mixture, and this mixture was scratched down with a razor, and my whole face was cut to pieces so that both my shirt and my trousers were full of blood. In those open wounds then they rubbed salt with the palms of their hands into those wounds for long minutes, and my whole head was burning as if I had it in some sort of an acid, and during the entire procedure I was beaten with their fists, I was spat at, and I was beaten until I collapsed unconscious. When I came to again I was lying on a couch and two doctors were taking care of my injuries, one or two hours later. I stayed there, and between nine and ten in the evening I was interrogated, which interrogation lasted until the early hours of the morning. A few hours after the interrogation I was transferred to Nurnberg where I arrived on the first of June, 1946. After twenty-four hours I was interrogated again here in the morning and in the afternoon, and I was asked about all sorts of things after the tortures that had occurred to me, namely certain tortures that consisted of the following things. When I was taken into the interrogation I had to wait outside marking time on the double. Then the guard kept kicking me in the rear, and a halter was put to me so that I hit the ground on my whole length or I banged my head against the wall. Those were the occurrences that occurred there a few days before my arrival here, and now all those interrogations were thrown at me. During the noon recess I was interrogated by the psychologist, who submitted all sorts of drawings to me, which I was to understand and decipher, and sometimes I thought I was crazy or something.
Under all those circumstances, and then in that particular physical condition, nor even one piece of paper in my hand at all, no document on which I could base my recollection, I was asked a thousand and one questions, and this one here and all the others were part of them.
But although the questions were put to me, in other words, they asked me, "Do you know anything about it?" I said, "Yes, it might have been that way," I can see today there were objective mistakes and certain untrue facts in there. For instance, the entire visit of the Reichsbank was told me in such a manner that I actually believed that it actually occurred that way. Not I said that I made this statement but the interrogator did, and with his own words it was put into the affidavit. From all those interrogations, namely in March or April, an extract was made out of those, an excerpt, not as original, new interrogations, but they were excerpts from those interrogations which were taken a year ago, so that he took all those mistakes that I made a year ago into those new interrogations, and that is how all those interrogations were. That is the reason I do not want to make another statement now, in order to avoid more mistakes. I cannot stick to all my statements to the full extent, and according to my recollection at the present moment they were actually wrong, for that is how they were made up.
Q. (By Dr. Seidl) Witness, the Prosecution during the cross-elimination showed you Dr. Kraemer's diary of 1943. Kraemer was apparently a physician in Auschwitz. From this diary it can be seen that on 23rd of September, 1943, you were in Auschwitz and that you participated at a special dinner which was served in the Fuehrerheim, the Fuehrer Home. I ask you now, where is this Fuehrer Home, is it in the direct vicinity of the protective custody camp or is it some distance from there, and what can you say about it?
MR. ROBBINS: I think that Dr. Seidl has the date wrong. It was 1942, wasn't it?
THE PRESIDENT: Our recollection it is 1942.
JUDGE MUSSMANO: Dr. Seidl, before you get too far away from the long exposition made by the defendant as to why certain statements are ascribed to him, I would like to ask just a question or two on these affidavits which were mode in March, 1947.
BY JUDGE MUSSMANO:
Q. Witness, this alleged mistreatment did not leave any permanent mental or physical scars, did it?
A. Well, during those weeks I was really depressed, both psychologically and physically, and then I actually stated the facts exactly as they were without exaggerating any of them.
Q. Did you ever tell this story before?
A. I had no opportunity to do so, to ever tell anybody about it.
Q. You were examined for days by your own counsel. How is it you didn't tell us about this at that time?
A. Because it was not possible in connection with this question. I wanted to talk about it during the cross-examination, but I was stopped.
Q. I mean the direct examination. It seems to me that if this story is true that this would be one of the most vivid things in your memory and one of the things which you would want to tell an impartial tribunal just as soon as you got into that witness stand. Why is it that you waited all this time before telling us this startling episode which you have now recounted?
A. No questions of my defendant counsel did I find any reason to tell of those occurrences and happenings.
Q. You were presented with document after document charging you with some rather serious things, and at no time did it occur to you to explain, until today, that you made these statements because you were suffering mentally as a result of a mistreatment which you have now, after all this time, described?
A. These documents were only introduced by the Prosecutor now during the cross-examination. Prior to that they were not discussed, I am talking about the affidavits right now.
Q. When you were cross-examined by Mr. Robbins on these documents you never said, "Well, I repudiate those documents because I was under physical and mental pain, or mental duress, when I signed them." You said nothing like that.
A. Yes, I was just about ready to talk about it, but I was cut off by the Prosecutor. He said this would be discussed later on by my defense counsel. I remember exactly that point, when I wanted to talk about them, and I was interrupted.
Q. What was your mental condition in March of 1947?
A. 1946?
Q. No, March, 1947.
A. You mean this year?
Q. Yes, what is your mental condition today?
A. Well, I think that I am absolutely normal.
Q. You feel yourself to be in full possession of your mental faculties today, as of June 2nd?
A. Yes, I think so.
Q. And you feel you were in similar condition in March of 1947?
A. Yes, I think so.
Q. Now, you signed a couple of affidavits in March of 1947, and these affidavits both close with these words: "I have read the above affidavit in the German language, consisting of a certain number of pages, and declare that it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and I was given the opportunity to make all alterations and corrections in the above affidavit. This affidavit was given by me freely and voluntarily without any promise of reward, and I was subject to no compulsion or duress of any kind." Is that correct?
A. Yes, it says all that underneath very nicely...
Q. That is correct?
A. This affidavit, however, was not written up in March, 1947. It was nothing but an excerpt from the interrogation which was taken in 1946.