THE PRESIDENT: No, I am talking about who took the property from the Jews in the first place. The Gestapo?
A That can only be the Gestapo or State authorities who had the right to confiscate because the WVHA did not have the right to confiscate anything. I was not in position to confiscate Jewish property.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean no SS men confiscated any property from Jews?
A Members of the WVHA, no, nor could any SS men confiscate property. Conditions were always that there must be a State or Police measure which could be decided only by State or Police agencies.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. So the SS men did no confiscating for themselves, -- that's very bad. I'll start over again. You mean that no SS men confiscated any property from Jews?
A. He was quite unable to do so - impossible.
Q. Why unable to do so? All he needed to do was to get there ahead of the Gestapo.
A. Well, not any SS men could just go by and confiscate property. That is the matter of the highest authority. Only the police or the State authority could do that.
Q.Let me take it from there. No one could confiscate property from Jews, except the SD or the Gestapo?
A. The Gestapo and the agencies I mentioned here, which I mentioned here under "1". They are agencies of the State and they would use the Gestapo for that purpose, yes.
Q. All right. Now you did inventory some property taken from the Jews, I mean, the WVHA did, didn't it?
A. No, Your Honor. All I did was to deal with that property which was received from the SS treasury. I was to inventory that in the official manner, but that does not concern any Jewish property confiscated somewhere. The property could be inventoried and accounted by agencies of the Gestapo with the financial officials by any agency. -The Army even, which also confiscated, and they would inventory it there --- All State agencies.
Q. Don't be impatient with me. I may be a little dull. You told me that the WVHA did appraise and inventory some Jewish property. Didn't you say that?
A. No, Mr. President. It is quite impossible that I said that, because the WVHA was not able to confiscate anything.
Q. I didn't say "confiscate." I didn't say "confiscate" and you keep telling me that you couldn't confiscate. You did something with Jewish property, didn't you --- the WVHA?
A. As far as Jewish property reached the Treasury of the SS, it was inventoried on behalf of the Reich on the basis of this decree, but first of all there must have been a confiscation, which was not carried out by the WVHA.
Q. That is Number 27. You have said that 27 times -- that the WVHA did not confiscate, so I will settle with you on that score. The WVHA did something with Jewish property. They appraised it, didn't they. Didn't your organization appraise property that somebody seized from the Jews?
A. No.
Q. You didn't?
A. Immovable property, for instance, which is being referred to here, we only came into contact with when we purchased it, but then the appraising was also done by the Finance authorities and not by us.
Q. But what about securities, and golden fillings and spectacles, and fountain pens? Did you inventory any of those?
A. All these things went to the Reichbank.
Q. I don't care where they went. Did the WVHA inventory them and appraise them?
A. No, they were not inventoried or appraised by the WVHA. They were sent on to the Reichbank in the same way they came to Berlin. No accountancy or any other measure was taken by the WVHA.
Q. Well, I'll try to make this up. Am I to understand then that the WVHA had nothing whatever to do of any kind with any property that was seized from Jews by anybody?
A. Yes.
Q. You mean that seriously?
A. Yes.
Q.The WVHA never had anything to do with it -- with any of the Jewish property, movable or immovable?
A. What I mean to say, Mr. President, that confiscated Jewish property no matter why it was confiscated would be sent to the WVHA as a central administrative office.
That was not the case. Such valuables as reached Berlin, which is something quite different and has nothing to do with confiscating the valuables. All valuables from an action without accounting we sent all to the Reichbank and otherwise we had nothing to do with confiscating Jewish property.
Q. Well you did have something to do with Jewish personal property. Leave the word "confiscated" out. That is apparently your out. You did handle Jewish personal property that came from the East?
A. Only as far as -- only to the extent which we discussed here in the trial, but not in any other respect.
A. I don't care to what extent -- to some extent you handled Jewish personal property that came from the East, didn't you?
A. As far as it came from these actions to Berlin, we had to send it on to the Reichbank. Nothing else.
Q. That is what I have been trying to get you to say. You did have something to do with some Jewish personal property?
A. Of course.
Q. "Natuerlich", but a minute ago you said "no." All right, I won't quarrel with you. What did you do with the property that you did get from the East, from the Jews? You inventoried it and appraised it and sent it on to the Reichbank, didn't you?
A. No, it wasn't appraised or inventoried by us. As the transports reached Berlin they were sent on to the Reichbank.
Q. And you kept no record of it -- your department?
A. No, no lists were kept by us. Melmer, who accompanied these transports to the Reichsbank was given by the Reichsbank later a copy of the receipt without actual value being mentioned. that the transport had been handed over. I believe that was as far as the matter went.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q. You said further something about this I don't understand and you sent this order dated the 4th of July, 1944, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. That is the Prosecution Exhibit for Identification 543, and you headed it "The Reinhart Matter, Secret."
A. Yes.
Q. What did you mean by "Reinhart"?
A. That is the dictator's initials. That was not the Reinhart -
Q. I am not asking you about the initials. I an asking you about Reinhardt.
A. That is the Reinhardt action.
Q. What is the Reinhardt Action?
A. That was carried out in Lublin in the Government General.
Q. Confiscating Jewish property?
A. Yes.
Q. All right, now, you said you sent this order out in regard to the Reinhardt Action and you sent it to several of your administrative offices?
A. Yes.
Q. You sent it to Amt. A-4?
A. Yes.
Q. And Amt. A-1?
A. Yes.
Q. And also to Amtsgruppe B?
A. Yes.
Q. And Amtsgruppe D in Oranienberg?
A. Yes.
Q. Then you in Section 2, you say this: As far as SS officers have come into possession of Jewish property they have to turn it over to the above mentioned offices. Well, now, what do you mean? If you don't intend to turn over confiscated Jewish property to the offices under you, what did you mean by that?
A. It is not to be understood here that confiscated valuables are to be transferred to the above mentioned offices. That is not the sentence here at all.
Q. I didn't say transferred. It says, "Turned over to them"; confiscated Jewish property.
A. It says, "The above mentioned agencies to which the letter went, as far as they had come into possession of Jewish property, had to turn it over to the above mentioned offices."
Q. Of course they couldn't turn it over unless it came into their possession. Anyone understands that.
A. The agencies mentioned here under Paragraph 1. That has nothing to do with the Reinhardt action.
Q. Then you told them to turn over to those agencies the property that had been confiscated under the Reinhardt action, didn't you?
A. No.
Q. If you didn't, I can't understand English. That's all.
EXAMINATION BY THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO):
Q. Let me just ask one question. I share a little of the perplexity of my brother judges regarding your alleged ignorance of these articles taken from the Jews. I understand you now to say that you physically in no way had anything to do with the personal property. Now, answer that. Don't become ignorant. Just answer that now.
A. These are quite different matters here, I never denied the possibility that articles from the Reinhardt Action from the Government General were turned over to the Reich Bank; but that is an entirely different matter. Here I never disputed that we has something to do with Jewish property under the Reinhardt Action; but that is some thing quite different. The action Reinhardt was finished by July 1944; and the agencies which are mentioned here, all Higher SS and Police Leaders in the Reich and everywhere are being given the general directive here on how they should deal with such Jewish property as might reach them.
It is said here under 2, that they must turn it over to the agencies named under Paragraph 1. That is an entirely different matter. I never denied that we had something to do with Jewish property. Of course, we turned it over to the Reich. But they had nothing to do with this.
Q. Then you did at sometime have physical control over these personal articles taken from the liquidated Jews?
A. No control, because the transports-
Q. No control? Didn't you personally send to Himmler sixteen watches which were taken from dead Jews?
A. But that does not mean that I had control over it, your Honor.
Q. Didn't you repair fifteen of these watches yourself and send them to Himmler?
A. That is quite possible; but I don't understand that to mean control Control means supervision.
Q. You do not call the physical taking of an object, having it repaired under your supervision, and then sent to your superior, as control?
A. No, by control I mean something quite different.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's forget our control.
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal II will be in recess for 15 minutes.
( A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I believe that during the examination of the defendant by the Tribunal a certain misunderstanding occurred which was caused by a mistake in the translation. The witness spoke about the "Kontrolle", and that was translated with "control". The English word "control" has a different meaning from the German. In other words, it is "supervisory capacity" or "right of disposal", and the word used by the witness, the German word "Kontrolle" should have been translated with "supervision".
THE PRESIDENT: All right, we will so understand it, that "Kontrolle" in German means the right to direct or to supervise and something more than the mere physical possession of a thing.
DR. GAWLIK: Yes.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Then, I would like to clear up another misunderstanding which might occur; namely, witness, you informed us that the government of the Government General was being directed or managed by a person by the name of Frank. Is that person Frank the same person who is the defendant Frank here in this Courtroom?
A. No.
Q. That was not the same Frank, was it?
A. No, that was Governor General Frank, not the defendant Frank.
Q. It was that person who was placed before the International Military Tribunal and sentenced to death?
A. Yes.
Q. Take a look at Document NO 3161 and read the first sentence of paragraph 2.
A. "As far as SS agencies have come into possession of Jewish property, they have to turn it over to the above mentioned offices".
Q. I ask you now, witness, to what offices was that Jewish property to be transferred?
A. To these mentioned under Paragraph I, 1,2, 3, and 4.
Q. There might be a misunderstanding, here. Would you clear it up.
A. In the Reich area, the Oberfinanzpraesidenten; in the occupied territories, the offices of the Reich Commissioners, i.e., the commanders of the Wehrmacht; in the General Government, the Government of the General Government; in Bohemia and Moravia, to the German Minister of State for Bohemia and Moravia.
Q. Can you tell the Tribunal what the aims were that you pursued in that decree?
A. Well, generally speaking, so that the question of the administration of the Jewish property, as far as the SS agencies were concerned, would be cleared up.
Q. Is the following thing correct: I want you to answer my question with Yes or No. Did you want to state the following things; That the SS agencies are not competent for Jewish property but only the Oberfinanzpraesidenten, the Reich Commissioners, the commanders of the Wehrmacht, and that the SS agencies, if they possibly can and if they received property, have to transfer that Jewish property to the above mentioned Reich agencies?
A. Yes, that is the way I meant it.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Do you know of the fact if such a decree had been issued by other agencies, or rather, by other offices also in order to clear up those matters; namely, who was to administer Jewish property?
A I even assume that. I assume that this final decree was based on other general decrees of a similar nature.
Q Then there were probably some things that were unclarified about the right of confiscation in Germany prior to 1945. Who was it that could confiscate property in Germany, particularly Jewish property?
A The Gestapo, Secret State Police.
Q Could a member of the SS walk into an apartment of a Jew and confiscate property there?
A No, he could not do so.
Q Can you give us a reason? Can you tell us why the SS was accused of that and why the impression was created that the SS was doing so? Think of the uniform perhaps.
A Yes, I know. You see the members of the Gestapo were mostly members of the SS and wherever they appeared they were regarded as members of the SS.
Q What uniform did the Gestapo wear in the occupied territories?
A Well, I believe they were wearing the field grey uniform.
Q Was that the SS uniform?
A Well, I assume that that was the field grey SS uniform.
Q If such a Gestapo agent, who at the same time was a member of the SS, carried out a confiscation did he act in that capacity as a Gestapo agent or as an SS member?
A He acted in his capacity as a Gestapo agent.
Q And did the SS have anything to do with that. Did the SS issue any instructions?
A No, the SS could not do that.
Q In other words, an SS Fuehrer, an SS leader, could he give an order to one of his subordinate SS men who was at the same time a Court No. II, Case No. 4.Gestapo agent?
Could he give him orders to the effect that he should carry out a confiscation?
A No.
Q From whom did the Gestapo agent receive the order for the confiscation?
A He received it from his Gestapo agency.
Q Would you tell at the same time to the Tribunal who were the subordinates of the individual Gestapo agents? Who were the officers in charge of him?
AAt the lowest level was the Gestapo-Leitstelle, the local office. I don't know all the channels but, finally, it ended with the RSHA.
Q What department of the RSHA?
A The Gestapo. I don't know what department it was.
Q What Amt was it?
AAmt IV.
Q Amt IV of the RSHA?
A Yes, AMT IV of the Reich Security Main Office. That was the top level of the Gestapo, which agency had other agencies subordinated to it down to the local office.
Q Who was in charge of the RSHA?
A Kaltenbrunner was the man who was last in charge of the RSHA.
Q In paragraph 2 it says: "Then in special cases a report is to be made to the Chief of the SS-WVHA." Did you ever receive such reports? Can you recall any of them?
A No, I cannot recall any such reports. I don't know if I ever received any.
Q Now, take a look at the heading of this letter again. Amtsgruppe W is not mentioned there. Can you tell us a reason why Amtsgruppe W is not mentioned?
A Well, I imagine because they had nothing to do with the Court No. II, Case No. 4.confiscation of Jewish property nor with the administration of it and they had no connection with it.
Q Is it correct, if I understand your answer, in the following way; namely, because the Amtsgruppe W had no possibility whatsoever to receive such property? Is that the reason why Amtsgruppe W is not mentioned?
A That could not have been the reason. This might have been confiscated property of Amtsgruppe W; it might have been purchased by Amtsgruppe W. I cannot give you an exact reason for that.
Q Then, witness, to talk about something else; you said during the cross examination answering the question put to you by the prosecution, "Did Volk belong to the DEST?" and you answered "Volk never belonged to the DEST." The prosecution then asked you, "Your answer is that you did not know it", and thereupon you answered with "No". I ask you now, witness, is your answer that Volk never did belong to the DEST?
A Well, I cannot recall that Volk ever was a member of the DEST. I believe that he was a liaison man in the office of Salpeter in 1940 when he came, but I do not know if he was a member of the DEST. I don't believe so.
Q During the cross examination the Lebensborn was mentioned. Who was a member of the Lebensborn?
A Every SS member.
Q Is it correct that all full-time members of the SS were members?
A Yes, I think so.
Q Do you know if the defendants Dr. Volk and Bobermin were members of the Lebensborn?
A I do not know that.
Q During the cross examination, the trip of the defendant Dr. Volk to Stutthof was mentioned in order to select the site for the construction of a settlement. You said that Dr. Volk also visited the Court No. II, Case No. 4.sites for plants which later on used concentration camp inmates and that he was to purchase them.
I put it to you that this brick factory, Stutthof, and the estate of Werderhof were purchased by the German Reich. If you consider this fact, do you wish to correct it in any way?
AAs far as I can recall, I did not say that. On the contrary I said that the purchase of the site for the enterprises had been carried out by Amt A-III and not by Volk. I never did say that Volk was to purchase the site for the concentration camp. I can recall very well that I drew your attention to the fact that as business manager of the Estate G.m.b.H. that he acted as an agent of theirs.
Q It is correct then that the defendant Dr. Volk had nothing to do with the purchase of this site for the enterprise and did not have anything to do with the negotiations either?
A No, he had nothing whatsoever to do with that. That was a matter which was being taken care of by Amt A-II.
Q You further stated, witness, that the Gemeinnuetzige Wohnungs and Heimstaetten G.m.b.H. did not buy any real estate from Jewish hands. I shall now put a document before you, which is 105, and I shall ask you to tell us now if the defendant Volk had anything to do with the purchase of these seven Jewish estates? It is 1405.
A Well, this is a business report dated 1941, and it is signed by Volk. I can see from this document that the Gemeinnuetzige actually purchased seven estates from Neri Aryan. That was in 1941. I had forgotten this. But I do not know at the present moment who carried out the purchase; if Volk did it himself or someone else, I do not know.
Q Do you recall, witness, that a certain man by the name of Kuehnel carried out this purchase who received a special mission from both you and Dr. Salpeter?
A I do know the name Kuehnel but at the present moment, after six years, I couldn't possibly tell you if Kuehnel carried it out Court No. II, Case No. 4.or someone else.
I no longer recall that nor do I know if he had any special orders to that effect, because he was a civilian employee with whom I had hardly any connections at all.
DR. GAWLIK: No further questions.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q One or two questions, please. There were no Gestapo or State police inside the concentration camp, were there?
A Your Honor, in every concentration camp there was a so-called Department 6; those were agents of Department 4 of the Reich Security Main Office, to which the Gestapo also belonged. However, if they were Gestapo officials or not, I could not tell you. There were officials of Amt 4 of the RSHA in every concentration camp.
Q Well, when Jews were brought into the concentration camp, they had personal property on them, did they? Watches, jewelry, other items like that?
A Yes.
Q And what happened to that property? Was it put away for them?
A Well, all those personal items of theirs were put away. There was a special storeroom for those, and all their civilian property was put into one sack, and it was kept there; at least that is the way it was in normal times, the way I knew it. How it was carried out later on, when there was a growing influx of people, I do not know. But in normal times, the personal property of the inmates was put aside and kept for them. There was a special administration for it.
Q They checked there personal property with the SS?
A With reference to this personal property in normal times, they kept books on them; it was deposited.
Q And if, by chance, a Jew should die--from natural causes, of course--what happened to his property?
A Well, all I can say--and I can only judge the normal conditions-as far as I know, whatever was left behind was given to their heirs.
Q And never confiscated?
A I never heard anything about it, Your Honor, that was confiscated because they could have taken it away immediately when they arrived. They wouldn't have had to keep it for a little while and administer it, etc.
Q Well, I am not sure that I know what you mean by normal times. Do you mean before the war?
A Well--no. What I mean by that is up to 1942, perhaps. That was at the time when the entire situation could be surveyed and then later on the whole situation became sort of blurred, due to the great numbers of people that came into the camps, when hundreds of thousands arrived in the camps; and I don't believe that the administration of their clothing was carried out in the same manner as before. But I do not know for sure.
Q You probably mean up to the time that Himmler announced the police of extermination of the Jews--before that it was normal?
A Well, I do not think that it lasted that long. From the sudden increase, I don't believe that it was normal up to that time.
Q Even before that things had gotten pretty bad?
A Well, one can say from '44 on; at the latest that is, towards the middle of '44 the situation became blurred in the camps.
Q All right.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, that was a very interesting point that the President was just touching on; what happened to the Jews' property, the Jewish inmates of concentration camps; and your answer that you knew nothing about the disposal of the property I would like to show you a document here that I think will refresh your recollection.
First tell us what this document is.
A This document originates from the Chief of the SS_WVHA, and it is dated the 7th of January, 1943, and is addressed to all the concentration camps, and also to a few other agencies. This regulates whatever is left behind by inmates who died. Should I read aloud?
Q Will you read the part that was just pointed out to you?
A "Distributor: Concentration camps Natzweiller, Dachau, Sachsenhausen, Buchenwald-Weimar, Flossenbuerg, Gross-Rossen, Mauthausen, Ravensbruck, Neuengamme, Niederhagen-Wewelsburg, Auschwitz, Gusen, Mohrungen, PW Camp Lublin, Danzig-Matzgau, Penitentiary Straubing, Amtsgruppe D, Oranienburg, Chief of the Security Police of the SD, Berlin, SW-11 Prinz Albetstrasse No. 11."
"Re: Property of inmates who. died. Cancelling all the decrees issued by me so far, I order the following:
"No. 1. Whatever is left by inmates who die, with the exception of those of the Polish and Jewish prisoners, as well as all of those inmates of occupied territories, have to be sent to the respective relatives, as so far."
Q That is, with the exception of the Jews and the Poles?
A What?
Q Property was to be sent to the relatives, with the exception of the Jews and the Poles, and the persons from the Occupied Territories?
A Yes, with the exception of the Polish and Jewish prisoners since 1943. I said before that I did not know for sure what regulations took place later on--but as of then.
Q It remained in effect with the exception of the Jewish and the Poles -
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Who signed the order?
A It is signed by the defendant Frank.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: And at that time Frank was your deputy?
A Yes.
MR. ROBBINS: I haven't yet made a document out of this piece of evidence; it hasn't been given a document number. I will do that and give it an exhibit number later.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Just a few minutes ago, witness, you told us that Dr. Volk had nothing--that is, the defendant Volk--whatever to do with the negotiation about the purchase of the site at the Stutthof concentration camp. I must say that there is very little understanding between you and me as to what you mean when you said that someone has nothing whatever to do with a thing.
You were referred a while ago, I believe -- if not then, earlier--to Document NO-2147, which is in Document Book No. 2, which is a report which states--do you have document book No. 2 there?
A Yes.
Q It is on page 52 of the German book. It is Exhibit 30. The report is sent to you, and it states: "AS ordered, representives of the Amt 2 and the W offices inspected --" NO-2147.
A Yes, I found it.
Q "As ordered, representatives of the Amt 2 and the W Offices, inspected on the 8th instant"--that means the 8th of January, 1942--" the site of the concentration camp Stutthof, the following participated in the inspection. From the Staff Chief of the Main Office, Dr. Volk; also Maurer, Vogel, May and others."
You see that there, don't you?
A Yes, I do.
Q All right. Now, I would like to clear up another question. Before we blame everything that happened, from 1940 onwards, to the Gestapo, and take all of them blame away from the SS, let's try to get a clearer picture of where the Gestapo was located in the Reich Leadership Office of the SS.
A Just a moment, I didn't quite understand the last part, Mr. Robbins. Would You repeat, please?
Q The Gestapo was a part of the SS, wasn't it? It was under the Reich Leadership of the SS Himmler, wasn't it?
A Yes.
Q And when you said that the WVHA handled the property that was confiscated by the SS, you included property confiscated by all of the SS, didn't you.
A I don't quite get it. Maybe the translation isn't correct-or something.
Q You said that the WVHA handled only the property that was seized by the SS. When you said that you meant the property that was seized by every part of the SS, didn't you?
A Well, the WVHA did not administer the entire Jewish property which was confiscated by the SS. After all, as I said before, the Gestapo was the only agency that could confiscate, and the agencies which were to administer this confiscated property I have listed before. And I mentioned it in that decree. The WVHA was not the Main Office for the administration of all of the seized Jewish property, or confiscated property. Only those agencies which I mentioned here were competent.
Q Well, you dealt with property that was confiscated by the Gestapo, didn't you?
A No, not all the property that was confiscated by the Gestapo.
Q I didn't ask you whether it was all of the property; I asked you if you dealt with any of the property. You dealt with some of the property, didn't you?
A Yes, when, in certain cases, the confiscation was carried out for the purposes of the SS-for certain purposes of the SS-then, of course, it was the task of the WVHA to either administer it itself or to appoint an administering agency.
Q Now you have told us that on your Re-Direct that Osti had nothing whatever to do with Action Reichardt. I don't intend to interrogate you again on the documents that we went over the other day, but I would like to refer the Court to the exhibits 486 to 489, Document Book 19, which is Globocnik's report on Action Reinhardt, and this report shows the intimate relation that the Osti Industry had to Action Reinhardt, according to the report of Globocnik
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. ROBBINS: Well, I didn't ask you a question. The witness has also told us that he acted merely as a conduit for the goods that went from the confiscated Jews to the Reichsbahk. Again, I don't intend to go back over this same document, but I would state for the record that Document NO-1257, which is Exhibit 479, and the other documents in Book 18 show the extensive power which this defendant had over this property. The document which I just referred to, NO-1257, is a report signed by Pohl on the realization of textile salvage on the Jewish resettlement up to the present date and contains an extensive, comprehensive inventory on the goods that the WVHA has handled and the inventory states, Statement on the quantities of old textiles, materials ---
DR. SEIDL: This series of documents are being presented without one single question being put to the defendant. Now, if new documents are introduced or at least mentioned in direct examination or cross-examination, then at least the defendant should be given the opportunity to discuss these documents. Otherwise I cannot see any reason why the contents of these documents should be used before the Court again at this point.
MR. ROBBINS: These aren't new documents. They are documents that you had examined the witness on, the Court has examined him on, and I have cross-examined him on. I am thus referring the Court again to these same documents. That is the last document I have to refer to in that connection.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Now, you told us just a few moments ago in response to the President's question that you never discussed liquidation of Jews with Gluecks, who was head of Amtsgruppe D, and in response to Judge Phillips' question you stated that you have no knowledge of how many Jews were killed. I would like to read to you from an interrogation which is dated the 3rd of June, 1946, and was conducted by Colonel Brookhart, who was one of Mr. Justice Jackson's interrogators, when you were put this question--