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--
THE PRESIDENT: Has this been referred before, this interrogation--
MR. ROBBINS: No, it hasn't.
THE PRESIDENT: It hasn't been given a number.
MR. ROBBINS: No.
THE PRESIDENT: You see the disadvantage you put the defense to. You are going to read a small portion of the interrogation. They have no method of finding out whether there is something else in the interrogation that might be favorable to them or contradictory of the part you are reading.
MR. ROBBINS: Your Honor, I know of no rule which says that prior consistent statements prove a witness's veracity. Undoubtedly statements are in here consistent with what he said but there are a great many statements which are inconsistent. I just want to merely ask him if he made this statement at the time. If he says he didn't make it, then I have no other recourse than to put the interrogation into evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, you could confront the witness with a prior contradictory statement, even if it weren't in writing.
MR. ROBBINS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, perhaps I am anticipating a difficulty. Go ahead, ask your question and then we will see whether it is objectionable or not.
DR. SEIDL: I object to the use of this transcript of the interrogation of the defendant, namely for the following reason. A few weeks ago a defense counsel of the Tribunal made the request that copies of these interrogations be put at his disposal so he could possible examine them, and particularly in order to find out if they agree with former statements made by the defendant. The prosecution simply denied us that request, explaining that the affidavits would be submitted and that the prosecution was not in a position to put records of the transcripts at their disposal. And under those circumstances I haven't had the oppor tunity to check up the fact that the excerpts from the interrogation put before the defendant now by the prosecution give an accurate picture of the interrogation, or then if certain passages of the interrogation cannot be seen, that that statement is contradictory to what it says further down.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no question yet put to the witness. I have nothing to rule on. When the question is put to--
(Some interruption)
(Resuming) No question has yet been put to the witness. It may be that the witness will confirm the interrogatory. We can't tell until he is asked a question. Go ahead, Mr. Robbins.
MR. ROBBINS: Just for the record, I should like to say that it wasn't several weeks ago that the request was made for the other interrogation; it was last Thursday, I think, and copies are being made pursuant to the request.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. This is the question, witness. I should like to know if these questions - three questions and following three answers - were made in the course of an interrogation:
"Question: You have already told us that Hoess was active in this program. How did Hoess carry out his end of the program at Auschwitz?
"Answer: He carried out the liquidation of the Jews.
"Question: And how many did he liquidate there?
"Answer: I really will have to estimate that. I don't know the number.
"Question: Well, then, I will ask you for your estimate.
"Answer: I talked to Gluecks about it and even he did not know the exact figure. We estimated and Gluecks thought about three million."
Do you recall that?
A. That is possible that that was stated in that manner, but I had no evidence for figures.
Q. Did you talk to Gluecks about the liquidation of Jews or didn't you?
A. Well, I can't tell - that is so long ago - whether I talked to Gluecks about it.
Q. So when you told the Tribunal that you absolutely did not talk to Gluecks you were in error; you should have said you couldn't remember.
A. Yes -- well, I really don't recall at the present moment whether I ever discussed that question with Gluecks, because I never discussed those things with him.
Q. Do you recall the date when you were arrested by the British? It was May 27, wasn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And on the 1st of June you were brought here to Nuernberg, weren't you?
A. Yes.
Q. On the 1st of June you were given a medical examination, weren't you?
A. When?
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Let's have the year. I know--
Q. This was 1946, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. You were arrested on May 27, 1946, and brought here to Nuernberg on June 1, 1946.
A. Yes.
Q. On that same day--
A. Yes.
Q. ---you had a physical examination?
A. Yes, I believe that the physician went through the cell and asked me if anything was wrong with me. I can't recall.
Q. Do you remember what you told the physician when he asked you that?
A. At the time I don't believe that I said anything.
Q. Do you also recall that you were interrogated two days later by Colonel Brookhart, on the 3rd of June?
A. A few days later, yes, that is correct.
Q. And that you were interrogated twice on the 4th of June?
A. Well, I don't recall the exact dates. However, from the 2nd or 3rd of June on, I was interrogated quite often.
Q. And you were interrogated on two other occasions, on the 7th of June, 1946, and again on the 10th of June; again on the 20th of June and again on the 10th of July - twice on the 10th of July. And any time during those interrogations did you say anything to the interrogators about the treatment that you had received from the British?
A. No, I did not. I did not do so.
Q. When you came to Nuernberg did you have any open wounds? Were there wounds on your face?
A. Yes, I had a beard and one could not see the scars very well, but I know very well I did have them, because I could not shave for fourteen days.
Q. Were they bleeding?
A. WeLl, of course, the blood had coagulated; after an hour or so everything was coagulated. But one could still see the scars; I couldn't shave for fourteen days.
Q. As a matter of fact, isn't it true you were struck while you were resisting arrest by the British?
A. No, there was no such thing. I couldn't do that. The criminal agent was in front of me with a pistol in his hand. He said, "Hands up!" and that was all there was to it. I didn't even try to resist arrest.
Q. And you state to this Court that you made no attempt whatever to resist arrest?
A. Yes, I did not make any attempt to resist my arrest.
Q. Will you tell us what you were arrested for, what occasioned your arrest?
A. Because I was being sought after. I was arrested all of a sudden by a CID agent.
Q. You were caught because you were in possession of stolen property, weren't you? You had a stolen bicycle and were arrested for that.
A. Yes, that was the beautiful note they wrote in the papers about me, that I had stolen a bicycle. I had heard about that later. Oh, that's a lie. That is something I never did in my life. I heard about that too.
Q. But that isn't true.
A. No, that is a lot of nonsense.
Q. You weren't arrested for that charge.
A. No.
Q. Was the charge made against you when you were arrested?
A. Yes -- well, one of the criminal investigation agents, or rather a British officer in charge told me I was being arrested only because I had stolen a bicycle. I was arrested because I was Obergruppenfuehrer and I was sought. That was a natural procedure. There was no such thing as a theft of a bicycle. I was working in the garden and all of a sudden that criminal agent was in front of me, just like a ghost, and that was that.
Q. And why was it that you didn't tell the prison doctor or any of the interrogators during these many days you were interrogated about your treatment that you were feeling bad?
A. Well, now, to answer this question is rather difficult. It never occurred to me. I was under the impression that nobody would understand me. I did not know why I should tell them anything at all. I would not even have mentioned that treatment here in this Tribunal if you hadn't talked about that affidavit. I did not tell you all that in order to have you pity me and all that. And I did not say it to blame the British.
Q. Well, the fact was that if the incident occurred at all it was a minor incident, wasn't it, and the fact that you were depressed didn't result from mistreatment, but rather that you had been charged with the crimes that you had committed?
That caused your depression, didn't it?
A. I knew of no crimes. All year long, with everything that had gone over me, well, one would have to be a piece of wood if I would not be affected by all these things. And then on top of that came my life in British captivity, and I still remember that; I can tell you that.
Q. You were arrested on the 27th of May and brought here the 1st of June, 1946, and you signed that affidavit which you tell us now was signed because you were depressed, on the 15th of July, 1946, and you tell us that the reason you didn't say anything about the reason for your signing it was that I didn't give you a chance the other day. It is true that it was in the course of my cross-examination I stopped you -- one was in reference to the Lebensborn document, and one in reference to the affidavit. However, I interrogated you at great length about the interrogations which took place between the 1st of June, 1946, and the 15th of July, 1946. There are ten or eleven different interrogations that I read to you from. I read to you your prior inconsistent testimony about the defendant Goerg Loerner, where you said some time during June, 1946, that Georg Loerner was in charge of clothing for concentration camps. I read to you a prior inconsistent statement about the defendant Baier, where you said that Baier was in charge of the SS industries; and I read you five or six, seven or eight inconsistent statements that you made. During this period of time you had plenty of opportunity during your cross-examination to tell us that those statements had been made because you were feeling badly. You had that opportunity, didn't you?
A. Well, Mr. Prosecutor, during your cross-examination I did not notice that I had an opportunity to refer to those things, to speak about them. Otherwise I would have done so,
Q. And you tell us today that everything in these interrogations which took place during that period was not true, is that the situation?
A. No, I did not say that. All I said this morning is there are certain factual mistakes; that the affidavit is not correct in every detail. That's what I said this morning. And there are factual mistakes that--
Q. When I put questions to you about these interrogations several times, I asked you what you had to say about this? On those occasions you could have told us about your mistreatment, couldn't you?
A. Well, maybe I would have done so; we spoke about it today.
MR. ROBBINS: I have no further questions on redirect examination.
BY JUDGE MUSMANNO:
Q. Where were you between May 8, 1945, and May 27, 1946?
A. From May '42 to May '46--
Q. From the date of the surrender until the date of your capture.
A. From May '42--
Q. No, May 1945 to May 1946.
A. At that time I was free. I was at my daughter-in-law's. I was hiding there at my daughter-in-law's.
THE PRESIDENT: Recess until tomorrow morning at nine-thirty.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 3 June 1947 at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of Military Tribunal 11, Case 4, in the matter of the United States of America, against Oswald Pohl, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 3 June 1947, 0930, Justice Toms presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
The honorable, the Judges of military tribunal 11.
Military Tribunal 11 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honirable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Courtroom.
DR. SEIDL: (for the defendant Oswald Pohl):
Your Honor, I have no further questions to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Robbins, the defense has concluded its examination.
MR. ROBBINS: I have no further questions.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I should like to ask permission to ask a few more questions because of the redirect examination by the prosecution.
OSWALD POHL (Resumed) EXAMINATION BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Witness, if I understood you correctly, you said yesterday during the reexamination by the prosecution that the Gestapo was part of the SS. Do you have something to add to this answer, or do you have anything to correct?
A By that I meant that the members of the Gestapo in the greatest part were members of the SS. The Gestapo itself was a state institution.
Q Is it correct then to say that the Gestapo itself was part of the SS as an organization?
A No.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, he said "No" yesterday. He said the members of the SS, but the two were separate.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Were all members of the Gestapo members of the SS?
A I do not know that.
Q Do you know the extent, that is, the percentage of the Gestapo who were at the same time members of the SS?
A No, I couldn't give any information about that.
DR. GAWLIK: Thank you. No further questions.
EXAMINATION BY THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE PHILLIPS):
Q Did you ever know a member of the Gestapo that was not a member of the SS?
A Well, I did not know all members of the Gestapo. I never did meet one-
Q I didn't ask you that. I asked you whether you ever knew of a member of the Gestapo that was not a member of the SS.
A I cannot recall that.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, the Gestapo was under the control of the Reich Leadership of the SS, was it not?
A No.
Q It was the Gestapo -
A The Gestapo was under -
Q The Gestapo was under the control of the Reich Security Main Office, wasn't it? The Reich Security Hauptamt?
A The Gestapo was a State institution and was subordinate to the Chief of German Police. He was at the same time Reichsfuehrer-SS but this does not change anything in. this organizational connection. For the Gestapo was established by law in 1936.
Q The Gestapo was also under the Ministry of Interior under Himmler, as I understand it?
A Yes, well, that is correct.
Q And it was also under Himmler in his position as Reich Leader of the SS, was it not?
A No, not in his capacity as Reichsfuehrer SS, but his capacity as Chief of the German Police. Prior to that it was subordinate to Goering, and from 1936 on, approximately, then Himmler became Chief of German Police, and as such he was in charge of that part of the German Police which is the Gestapo.
Q Tell us what control the RSHA had over the Gestapo. First, let me ask you this. The Gestapo was an Amt-4. in the RSHA, was it not?
A Yes, that was the Gestapo.
Q What control did the RSHA have over the Gestapo?
A Well, I could not tell you anything about these connections, because I am not very well informed about that. I could not give you an exact description about it. In the RSHA it was as follows: parts of the Party and of the Reich were in the RSHA, for instance, the Security Service the SD, was partly financed by the Party, but the Gestapo was a Reich organization, exactly as the earlier and until the end in the WVHA had parts of the General-SS the Party-SS and the Waffen-SS, the the Reichs-SS.