Q. That is right.
A. And I endeavored to get the interrogator, to show him all those discrepancies, but I was always told again and again, "Well, you swore to that about a year ago." In other words, I simply did not succeed in eliminating those discrepancies in there. As far as I succeeded in doing so, well, it was a real success. The interrogator always again and again came back to the interrogation of 1946. That is where the mistakes slip in.
Q. But the fact remains that in March, 1947, when you were in full possession of your mental faculties, entirely recovered from any physical abuse which you claim you suffered, you wrote and signed, "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."
A. Yes.
Q. Were you telling a lie when you signed that?
A. I signed it without being convinced of the fact that that was an original affidavit, because it referred again and again to the interrogation of 1946.
Q. One more question, you understood exactly what was contained in this statement which I have just read to you?
A. Yes.
Q. You signed it voluntarily?
A. Yes.
JUDGE MUSSMANO: That is all.
MR. ROBBINS: I would like to point out to the Tribunal that the affidavits made and signed by the defendant in March and April of this year were signed and sworn to after the indictment in the case was served on the defendant, which should have given him additional notice that they would be used against him, as the first paragraph in the affidavit says that they will be. As to the affidavit that was taken in 1946, I would like to point out that although this affidavit was put to the defendant for the first time on cross examination that his counsel interrogated him at great length about the first time when he heard about the extermination of the Jews.
Similarly the Tribunal examined him at great length about that same subject, and at no time during those interrogations did he say anything about the story he has just told us.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q. In regard to the mistreatment that you said that you received prior to coming to Nurnberg, you say that was done by the British?
A. Yes.
Q. How long after you were arrested?
A. I would guess approximately three to four days after my arrest.
Q. Where and under what circumstances were you arrested?
A. I was arrested near Bremen by German Criminal Police, accompanied by the British.
Q. Then you were turned over to the Americans by the British some three or four days after your arrest?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have been in Nurnberg since?
A. Yes.
Q. You do not allege here at any time that Americans have beaten you or mistreated you or tortured you in any way, do you?
A. No, I don't say that. That was not the case.
BY JUDGE MUSSMANO:
Q. After your alleged mistreatment in the town, whose name I did not catch, you were brought to Nurnberg, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. You were brought here the day after the alleged mistreatment?
A. Please?
Q. You were brought here the day after the alleged mistreatment?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you treated by doctore here because of your treatment, mistreatment, in the Nurnberg prison?
A. No.
THE INTERPRETER: The name of the town was Bremen, your Honor.
MR. ROBBINS: I would like to point out to the Tribunal also this defendant, I found, was arrested by the British for a separate criminal act which had nothing to do with his connections with the SS. It may be the Tribunal would like to interrogate along that line.
Dr. Seidl: Just one more question, your Honors, in this connection.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. Witness, the Tribunal noticed that during the direct examination I had not asked you a direct question with reference to how this affidavit came about. Now, is it correct that you, yourself, never told me anything about this incident so far, and that I, up to the resent moment, did not know what the mistreatments were in detail to which you just testified?
A. No, I never discussed the matter with you.
DR. SEIDL: Your Honor, I really want to put some weight on the fact that I only asked that question to the witness for the simple reason that when Document 404-PS was put before him he did not have the possibility to make statements in detail, and that I have not heard about this entire incident which the witness spoke about now, exactly as the Tribunal did.
THE PRESIDENT: Recess until one-thirty.
THE MARSHAL: This Tribunal is in recess until 13:45 hours.
(A recess was taken until 13:45 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 2 June 1947) OSWALD POHL - Resumed REDIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. SEIDL:Q.- Witness, I have two more questions to put to you.
The prosecution in their cross examination submitted to you the diary of Dr. Cremer, who it would appear was one of the camp doctors in Auschwitz. This diary shows that on 23 September 1942, you were at Auschwitz, and although this does not become clear from the diary, you were not participating in a special banquet. You said in your testimony that at that time during your visit you did not notice anything suspicious. I would like to ask you where this house was in which the banquet was held.
A.- This leader's house is situated near the living quarters, about ten minutes from the station, on the other side of the protective custody camp and the concentration camp. Opposite, there was the living quarters of a leader. During the dinner, as I was a vegetarian and a teetotaler, I did not spend much time. I just stayed as long as it was necessary to have dinner and I returned to my quarters afterwards. During the dinner no word was said of that extermination nor did I receive any reports, and I had not made any observations of my own.
Q.- Evidence before the IMT showed that the extermination program of the Jews was based on a direct Hitler order. This becomes also clear from what is known as political testament. You, yourself, denied that before the beginning of 1944 to have had any knowledge of this matter, particularly of its extent, and that only through Himmler's speech at the Posen meeting you heard of the program.
You, yourself, were chief of one of the 12 main offices of the SS. I would like to ask you, would you have had the power to prevent this extermination program from being carried out if you had had any previous knowledge of it?
A.- I did not have the facilities to stop Hitler or Himmler from carrying out this program.
Q.- I have no further questions, Your Honor.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q.- Since you have had an opportunity to investigate the documents fully and carefully, do you now have an estimate satisfactory to yourself as to now many Jews were exterminated in the concentration camp during the time that the program was in progress?
A.- I have had no evidence of that. I cannot give you a figure. I am unable to estimate it. The documents do not show any figures.
Q.- And you have no knowledge, other than the documents, as to how many Jews were exterminated in the concentration camps?
A.- No. I never received any reports to that effect.
JUDGE TOMS: Any other questions?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHMIDT: (For the defendant Joseph Vogt) Q.- Witness, before your cross examination when I asked you, you said that you can still recall the auditing report which Vogt submitted after his return from Lublin in June 43 and that that auditing report had contained general reclamations.
The prosecution in their cross-examination submitted to you your affidavit of 2 April 47, Document NO-2714, Ex hibit 535.
In this affidavit you again mentioned the auditing report of Vogt in connection with the final report from Globocnik. I would therefore like to ask you, witness, did that auditing report of Vogt's contain, apart from the general criticisms connected with treasury matters, any indications of gold teeth, rings or jewels confiscated ?
A.- I cannot recall that such statements would have been contained in Vogt's auditing report. I do not know.
Q.- In the affidavit which I mentioned to you of 2 April 1947, you explained that the first transport of valuables of which you received knowledge occurred in the fall of 1943, and that later on from the final report by Globocnick and Vogt's auditing report, you saw that the loot from the Action Reinhardt came from the most varying personal properties as gold teeth, rings, jewels and foreign currency. You testified before that Vogt's auditing report had been submitted to you a few days later, roughly a week after he had returned from Lublin in June of 1943. In that affidavit given by you on the second of April 1947, you stated that later on you learned through Vogt's and Globocnick's final report, that is later than Autumn 1943, of the origin and extent of the booty.
Is it possible, witness, that at the time when you gave your affidavit of the 2d of April, 1947, as far as Vogt's Auditing Report was concerned, that you made a mistake, because, from the point of view of time and dates, there is a discrepancy between this and your other statements?
A. Well, Vogt's Auditing Report had nothing to do with Globocnic's final report. You cannot put the two together. As far as that there was some connection there -but they had nothing to do with each other. One was dated in June 1943 and the other January of '44.
Q. And Vogt's Auditing Report, apart from the general criticism, contained nothing otherwise, particularly concerning the composition of these confiscated objects?
A. I recall that Vogt's report was very brief, and concerned itself only with treasury matters. I don't think that it made any other statements.
Q. I now want to talk about Document NO-059, Exhibit 488, in Document Book 19. In that report by Globocnic about the administrative handling of the Reinhardt Action Reference is made to the effect that Vogt's auditing in Lublin limited itself only to the period up to the first of April 1943, whereas for the balance of that period, auditing still had to be done.
In connection with that document, Judge Phillips asked you a number of questions, witness, and in his final question, reference was made to two reports by Vogt; a preliminary report and a final report.
I would therefore like to ask you: Did you receive from Vogt one or two auditing reports concerning the Reinhardt account?
A. I can recall only one report of Vogt's dated June 1943. I cannot recall him making a final report, apart from that.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: I understood the witness to say that Vogt made one report--I understood the witness, in answer to my question, to testify that Vogt made one report, and that later that report--which was originally a preliminary report--became the final report, and was accepted as the final report.
Q. Witness, was Vogt's Auditing Report regarded as a final report later on?
A. Well, that was not possible because the auditing had not been completely finished, and, after June 1943, Vogt did not deal with auditing anymore. He transferred the accounts to Melmer. As far as I can recall, Vogt wrote only one report.
Q. Witness, is it correct then that Vogt, as far as the period since April 1943 is concerned, did no longer audit any sums connected with the Reinhardt account?
A. Well, as far as I am informed, the accounts, for the period after April 1943, went to Melmer who audited them.
DR. SCHMIDT: I have no further questions.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION.
BY DR. HOFFMANN (Counsel for the defendant Scheide):
Q. Witness, if I have understood you correctly, when you dealt with the Jewish question you made a difference between orders to kill and orders to use labor; orders to kill were not your concern. You were only interested in labor allocation. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. How did the orders to kill come about; what persons do you know there?
A. I don't know. I can only base my judgment there on hear say; I have no knowledge of my own.
Q. But surely you must have known that Hoess had orders to kill -
or did you hear that later?
A. I don't know that from my own knowledge. I only heard it that Hoess actually did it. But I do not know how or when he received orders. But, of course, later on I heard--as my Defense counsel said several times.
Q. Witness, I would like you to tell us whose subordinate was Hoess-was he your subordinate?
A. As a camp commandant he was my subordinate, but carrying out orders of a special nature, such as the extermination program, he stood under the man who gave him orders--who was Himmler. I was not present when he received that order, nor do I know the time when He received that order.
Q. And the order, too, for labor allocation--what about that?
A. I was given that order by Himmler.
Q. And that order you passed on to the various camp commandants?
A. Yes, I described in detail how I passed that order on.
Q. So that camp commandants were under two masters: one, whom you don't know very much about, and the other is yourself.
A. Well, as far as the Reichsfuehrer-SS was concerned, that was nothing new, that a man would haw several masters because even in the WVHA, as I explained before, the very special tasks given to Frank or Kammler--in that case they were no longer under me; they were then either directly under Himmler or under Hitler.
DR. HOFFMANN: Thank you very much.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. HAENSEL (Counsel for the defendant Georg Loerner.):
Q. Witness, there was a small misunderstanding which I want to clear up. You gave a number of affidavits shortly before this trial opened, on the third of April, 1947 for instance, and this trial opened on the 8th of April. The prosecution used this affidavit which is Document 525 for their cross examination. On that occasion you touched on the question which also made a part of your direct examination:
How far Georg Loerner had anything to do with the supply of clothes and food to the concentration camps. And on direct examination you said that he was not competent in these matters. Now, there are a number of other contradictions in your affidavits, such as in the one I just mentioned, 525, where you said under paragraph 19, that sometimes you discussed with Loerner to make sure that inmates were well-fed and clothed. I would like to ask you: Do you wish to express thereby that Georg Loerner was responsible that the clothes which came from Department B to the camp would be put at the disposal of these various inmates-or was his tasks at an end as soon as he had dealt with the applications which reached his office, from the point of view of quantity and quality?
A. The WVHA was a ministerial agency and, therefore, it was not his tasks to see to it and supervise that each inmate--because after all we did not have only six or seven hundred thousand inmates to lood after but also missions of soldiers--had his food at noon, or clothes. Our task at our level was only to plan and secure centrally; the actual providing of the individual soldier or inmate was of course the task of the commandos responsible. That could not be supervised from our level, high up on top this was practically impossible.
Q. Well, don't let us stop at the formal questions only and say what is not "my responsibility", according to the letter, I will not bother about; let us go a little further.
You said that you and Georg Loerner discussed the question that inmates should be well-fed and clothed. Were you of the conviction that inmates were well-fed and clothed?
A. That conviction I was not able to have after 1944 at least on account of the supply situation. Up to 1944 I was sure that everything possible was done, but if it wasn't adequate--which it was not later on-it would have been a contradiction to my conviction if I had said nevertheless, there is enough. For that reason I personally made efforts to have it implemented wherever possible to have food supplies sent to these camps.
Had I been convinced that everything had been adequate and sufficient, this would not have been necessary.
Q. Now, what part did Georg Loerner play in this? Did Loerner help you to do everything possible?
A. I cannot recall individual cases, of course, but I am quite sure that he did what was in his power. It is quite possible that we discussed it now and again, but whenever I came across deficiencies, I attempted to clear them up as quickly as possible-- not through Loerner.
Q. And also directly you mean?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. Now, what was your impressions of Loerner, on his own initiative did not do certain things he could have done from the point of view of supplying camps?
A. My impression was of Loerner that he always did his best, whatever was possible.
Q. And that was also discussed in your conversation?
A. I do not know what we discussed in detail in these conversations; if we discussed conditions I always had the impression that Loerner did everything that was within the balance of the possible, but I do not recall individual conversations. I simply don't remember.
BY DOCTOR HEIM: (for the defendant Hohberg)
Q. Witness, who carried out the legal obligatory auditory examinations? Was it Baier or Dr. Richard Karoly?
A. I believe Karoly, but I am not quite sure.
Q. Who carried out the compulsory auditing examinations before Baier became the chief?
A. Karoly joined us rather late. I believe he was called in by Baier, who did them before that. It might have been Hohberg himself, as an examiner.
Q. In cross-examination you said that Dr. Hohberg in 1940 started with his duties as an auditor. You also said that Co-Defendant Hohberg at that time was engaged in duties in the main office administration and economy. I would like to ask you, was Dr. Hohberg in that period and later on under your supervision in the WVHA or did he merely have a working contract with you?
A. Hohberg and the WVHA were connected, by a working contract.
Q. On redirect examination you stated that the institution of economic inspector was never actually carried out. After that period were there any changes in the activities of Hohberg's duties? That is the carrying out of the compulsory auditing?
A. No, not that I know of.
Q. On cross-examination you were asked this question: Is it true that Staff W was in charge of supervising DWB? And you said as fallows: Yes, as far as taxation, legal and reviewing matters were concerned. And I would like to ask you did you wish to say thereby that Staff W had the right to supervise and order these groups of firms?
A. No, I repeatedly said that members of the Staff W did not have the right to give orders to the firms. They merely were consulting agencies. Orders came from me directly to the firm.
Q. The Prosecution asked you on cross-examination whether Osit and the German medical supply G.m.b.H. were part of Staff W. You did not have an opportunity to answer that question. I would like to ask you this: Is your testimony when you were cross-examined correct, that Osti and the German medical supply G.m.b.H. were under you and Loerner?
A. As far as the organizational chart was concerned, I put it under Staff W, because somehow it had to be put somewhere, but really they were independent enterprises which were under their managers, directed by me, or I was a shareholder, and when I directed the enterprises I made use of the advice given by my collaborators.
Q. I shall now come to Document No. - 005, which is Exhibit 390, in Document Book 14, page 48 of the German version. In the cross-examination the Prosecution refered to that document.
It is an answer by Hohberg to a letter from Bobermin to Hohberg which is reproduced at the following page of the document book. Dr. Hohberg in his letter to Bobermin says that all auditors have been taken away from him and that the other auditors had been ordered to go to Lublin for special assignment. Here is my question: From that time onward when these people were ordered to Lublin that is, after January 20, 1943, Dr. Hohberg had the right to issue any orders to these detailed auditors?
A. I said that before. The auditors were not sent to Lublin only temporarily to the enterprises there. That was a final measure whereby they were given to these enterprises, and for that reason they were no longer under the orders of Hohberg or his successor and were immediately under the business managers of these firms.
Q. Did Dr. Hohberg have anything to do with these auditing measures in Lublin which are referred to in the document book?
A. I deduce from the document you mentioned, from the sentence, under the direction of SS Brigadefuehrer Globocnik and SS Oberbahnfuehrer Dr. Horn, that this refers to the foundation of Osti, with which Hohberg had nothing to do. That becomes clear even from the date.
DR. HEIM: Thanks very much. No further questions.
DR. FRITSCH: (for the defendant Baier) May it please the Court, this morning the witness was shown a document by the Prosecution from which it was to become clear or rather he answered a question as follows:
That Baier and he had been to Auschwitz together. I myself was not present at that time, and I deeply regret that I am unable to give you the document number. Perhaps, therefore, I might ask the witness now whether Baier at any time visited Auschwitz together with him or whether he went there with somebody else whose name sounds rather similar.
DR. SEIDL: May it please the Court: I think I am in a position to enlighten the Court. By mistake the name Baer was translated as Baier. Baer was the commandant of Auschwitz. I myself did not as the witness that question.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no confusion there. The name was Baer, B-A-E-R.
DR. FRITSCH: All I wanted to do was clear up one point. On cross-examination you were shown Document 1036, Exhibit 66, Document Book 3, page 82 of the German version. Have you got that document Book? Will you please take a look at this document?
(Witness going through document books.)
Can you tell me how it came that Baier signed that document? Will you please look at the dictation initials?
A. Well, I don't know whether this was Weller--
Q. Would you be inclined -- could you tell us what these dictation initials are?
A. WR Dr. MF/CH.
Q. If your Honor please, may I ask that the witness be shown the photostat copy of this, so that he can see whether there is an error or not -- but perhaps meanwhile you can answer my question: How it came Baier dealt with things like that; as you explained it when I examined you, you said that Baier was mainly concerned with checking accounts and here without a doubt he signs an order which came from you in a matter totally unconnected with checking.
A. Well, I mean, a thing like that might happen, because here in the final analysis we are concerned with the transfer of a certain field of activities to Cracow and I probably discussed this with him, because in the first place this was a business of accounting which was to be instituted there, which----
Q. Witness, can you tell us who reported to you about these matters?
A. I do not know.
Q. Is it possible it was Dr. Hofmann?
A. I don't recall. It is possible, but I cannot say for certain.
Q. If the dictation initials were not MF but HF, who could it have been then?
A. Then it could have been Hofmann.
Q. And how would it have come about in that case?
A. In that case probably there would have been a conversation between Dr. Hofmann and myself. Dr. Hofmann worked on it and Baier signed it.
Q. And why did you not sign it yourself?
A. I do not know any more.
Q. You must have had some reason?
A. It is quite impossible for me to say among these thousands of documents why I did not sign that particular one, why Baier signed it.
Q. Witness, you misunderstand. It is not only this single document. Surely, there might have been an order from you to the effect that when you were absent, matters discussed with you previously by the exports might be signed by somebody else if you yourself were not present.
A. That is impossible but I cannot recall.
Q The possibility does exist, does it not?
A Yes, it does. It says something else here. The dictation initials says Dr. "Hf" which means Dr. Hoffmann.
Q May I ask that the record show this your Honor that the German version of this document is incorrect in this?
THE PRESIDENT: Will you name the document specifically right now by number?
DR. FRITSCH: It's in Document Book No. 3, Exhibit No. 66, German page 82. Unhappily I do not know the page of the English Book, and the number is 1036.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, you wish the initials appearing on the document to be shown as what?
DR. FRITSCH: Hf.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q For Dr. Volk and Dr. Bobermin. Witness, I should like to read to you once again Document NO-3161, Exhibit 543 which was submitted this morning on cross examination. Will you please tell the Court who were higher finance presidents?
A These presidents were officials immediately under the Reich Minister of Finance and they were in charge of the larger financial districts.
Q Did they have Reich authority then and in now way connected with the WVHA?
A They were Reich authorities immediately under the Reich Minister of Finance.
Q Will you please tell the Court who was the Reich Commissioners? Who were they?
A The Reich Commissioners were the representatives of the Reich Government within the Gau districts and their orders were to carry out defensive assignments.
Q Are you not making a mistake here, witness, under the paragraph of this occupied territory?
A Quite. Yes, I made a mistake there. What I was talking about here are the Reich Commissioners in the Reich Territories. In the occupied territories the Reich Commissioners were the officials immediately under the Reich Minister for Easter Territories, that is, Rosenberg, again an authority of the State.
Q Is it correct again that these authorities again were not connected with the WVHA?
A No, that is quite correct. They had nothing to do with the WVHA.
Q Under whom were the Army Commanders?
A The Wehrmacht commanders were, of course, under the OKW.
Q Who was in charge of the Government General? Who was that?
A That, of course, was the Reich Department.
Q And whose task was that?
A That was the agency of the Government General.
Q Who was in charge of that agency?
AAt that time it was Frank.
Q And under Paragraph 4?
A The German Ministry of State for Bohemia and Moravia again was a Reich Department and he was either immediately under Hitler or the Reich Minister of the Interior.
Q Is it therefore correct to say that administrations of Jewish mobile and immobile property was not connected with any agency of the WVHA but only the Reich Department?
A Yes, that's correct.
Q Now, will you please tell the Court now who seized or confiscated their property? Who was that?
A The seizing could only be carried out by authorities of the state.
Q What authority was it?
A It was either these mentioned here or when police were called in.
Q What police organs would be called in particular?
A The Secret State Police.
Q And under whom Was the Secret State Police?
A Under the RSHA.
Q Is it therefore correct to say that the WVHA as far as Jewish movable and immovable property was concerned had neither the right to confiscate or administer?
A That's correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute, WVHA did something with the confiscated Jewish property. You didn't seize it, you didn't administer it. What did you do?
A Well, it says that under paragraph 2 if besides these competencies SS Agencies come into possession of Jewish property they had to turn it over to the above mentioned offices under paragraph 1.
THE PRESIDENT: That is right, somebody else seized it, WVHA transported it and channeled it and a third agency administered it?
A No, one could not call it a transport, Mr. President. One should understand rather this is the point of the decree actually that some SS agency came into the possession of Jewish property without my knowledge after it was confiscated by the competent authority without realizing how they had to deal with it and the manner of it processing. That is to say, the transfer to the Reich being explained -- it being ordered here.
THE PRESIDENT: That's right, but you are the one who gave the order -- the decree as to how it should be channeled. As to how it should be routed once it came into the possession of the SS.
A No channels. All we are concerned with here is to put it down into the books of the Reich --accounted. That becomes clear from paragraph 6 or 5 what Agency of the Reich Treasury -- how these pro perties should be accounted for.
THE PRESIDENT: And you specified the places where the property should be accounted for? That is, the several places that it should be inventoried and appraised and accounted for?
A Quite; where it was to be accounted for and inventoried.
THE PRESIDENT: All right; after that I come right back to the thing I said. The SD or the police seized the property and you inventoried and appraised it and prescribed the method for giving credit for it and the Reich Finance Minister or the Reichsbank took it in and kept it?
A Mr. President, it would be wrong to assume from here that the WVHA did look after or dealt with the administration of the entire Jewish property. That was only in order for the police case, if and when SS agencies should or had come into the possession of Jewish property. Jewish property was accounted for by the Trusteeship East, another agency. Large property would come into the agency. In our case we are only concerned with exceptional cases.
THE PRESIDENT: You are trying to say that you did not inventory or appraise all of the property that was taken from the Jews?
A I am quite certain that it was only a small section, because I was not the Central Administration Office for Jewish property. That the WVHA never was.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, how did WVHA happen to appraise any of it then? You appraised only that part that got into the hands of the SS.
A Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: But who else seized any property from the Jews -- I think I know the answer to this ahead of time, but who else seized any property from the Jews and appraised it, except the SS.
AAll of the agencies mentioned under 1 and more.