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.
The Waffen-SS was part of the Reich, and that applied to the Security Main Office.
Q That is, the Gestapo being part of the RSHA, and was an office in the RSHA?
A Yes.
Q And was subordinate to it, was it not?
A Yes.
Q And the RSHA was one of the Main Offices in the Reich Leadership of the SS?
A Yes. However, the Reich Leadership SS always consisted of two parts, the Reichsfuehrer-SS was party official, and, the Chief of German Police was a Reich official; in other words he had two branches there, which had been separated from each other. It was absolutely separated, and even this Gestapo was in the Reich Security Service, and, then, in spite of that it was strictly a Reich organization. I was also Reich Treasurer of the General-SS, and at the same time was representative in the Reich for the Waffen-SS; that was the same thing everywhere. However, the units themselves were absolutely separated from each other. One can not say that the Gestapo was part of the SS, although their members were, to a large extent, were members of the SS, but it was a Reich organization.
Q Is it your opinion that the Gestapo took no orders whatever from Himmler in his position as Reich Leader of the SS?
A In his position as Reichsfuehrer-SS, no. However, his capacity as Chief of the German Police, there is a difference there.
Q The Gestapo took orders from Himmler as Chief of the German Police, is that correct? and in his position as .........
A Of course, as Chief of the German Police, yes, that is correct, he was the superior.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, Mr. Witness, you are excused.
(witness excused)
DR. SEIDL: Your Honor, before asking the Tribunal to bring in the witness, Dr. Schmidt Klebenow, I would like to put another question -I would like to discuss another question with the following view, sir. The Prosecution during the introduction of its evidence introduced a series of affidavits of Dr. Rudolf Brandt, who is on trial before the Military Tribunal One, and he is one of the twenty-three doctors indicted there, although he himself is not a doctor. However, upon my application the Tribunal decides that this witness Rudolf Brandt, who is not a witness of the defense or of the Prosecution, would be cross examined, upon having him before this Tribunal, I would appreciate if the Tribunal would possibly rule that Rudolf Brandt be brought before this Tribunal after the witnesses Dr. Schmidt-Klevenow, and Karl Wolff have been heard, will be called before this Tribunal so that the defense can carry out the cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Arrangements will have to be made with Tribunal One to bring this witness from that Court to this one at the proper time, which will not interfere with the proceedings in Tribunal No. One. I shall take it up with Judge Beale and determine a proper time when Brandt can be brought to this courtroom as a witness. If possible it will be after the witness Wolff has been heard.
DR. SEIDL: I would appreciate then if the witness Dr. SchmidtKlevenow will be brought into this Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will bring this witness into the courtroom, please.
DR. SCHMIDT-KLEVENOW, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Raise your right hand and repeat after me?
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing. Have a seat.
(The witness repeated the oath)
(The witness then took his seat)
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q Witness, will you give us your full name?
A My name is Schmidt-Klevenow. My first name is Kurt.
Q Where and when were you born?
A I was born on 19 August 1906 in Cuxhavent.
Q Witness, I would like to draw your attention to the following facts: Please make a short pause between my questions and your answers so that the interpreters have time to make the respective translations.
A Yes.
Q Will you give us in brief terms your education?
A I went to Cuxhaven, and in Hamburg, where I went to school, and in 1926 I passed my high school examination. Then in Hamburg and in Innsbruuck I studied law, and political-economy and in 1930 I finished my Rependar examination, and in 1934 I passed my Assessors examination. Then I worked with the prosecution in Hamburg, and in 1935 I joined the Reichsfuehrung-SS in Berlin. In 1938 I was lawyer in Berlin, and on 1 April 1940, I was drafted into the Waffen-SS, and order to the WVHA.
Q How long have you known the defendant Oswald Pohl, and in what capacity did you make his acquaintance?
A I was in the WVHA a legan and welfare Officer. I knew Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl since 1 April 1940. I was in charge of all legal and disciplinary actions in the WVHA. In that capacity I was liaison man between the SS, and Police Courts and the Gerichtsherr. The Obergruppenfuehrer was Gerichtsherr of WVHA.
Q You say he was chief -----
THE PRESIDENT: I did not get the word you pronounced. Pohl was what?
THE INTERPRETER: Gerichtsherr, which is equivalent to Judge Advocate.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh.
Q. Witness, you say that Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl as Chief of an SS Main Office, also carried out the functions of the Supreme Judicial Authority. I ask you now, witness, what were the tasks in that position and in what fields and on what circle of persons did his activity actually have an effect?
A. The Office of Supreme Judicial Authority, according to the regulations prevailing, was regulated by the War time penal Code. Just as Divisional Commanders were responsible for the members of their organizations up in the front lines, the same applied to the Homeland, where the Higher SS and Police Leaders were responsible within their own Wehrkreise, or Defense Areas, as Supreme Judicial Authority for the soldiers within their area and also for the staff.
As far as the Main Offices were concerned, it was regulated in the following manner: Every Main Office of the SS had its own Supreme Judicial Authority. He was in charge of the respective Main Office. The higher SS and Police Leaders, had their own courts, there was only one Court in Berlin for all Main Offices, SS and Police Court III in Berlin.
The legal procedure was the following: If a punishable act had been committed, either according to the military penal code or according to the general penal code, and if this act could be recognized as a punishable act, then the unit leader -- the commander in other words -- usually represented by his legal officer, had to write out a report on the case. That particular report went to the supreme judicial authority. The supreme judicial authority transferred that report to the court, and the court appointed a special investigator. The supreme judicial authority had the task of carrying out the decrees of this court-- decrees concerning the withdrawal of indictments, orders for arrest, and all sentences, and to carry them out.
As far as this confirmation was concerned, it was carried out in the following way:
The supreme judicial authority within or outside the boundaries of the German Reich, were only responsible for sentences referring to NCO's, enlisted men, and the staff. Sentences and decrees against SS Fuehrers had to be approved by the Reichsfuehrer SS, as well as all confirmations of sentences against foreigners and all other important tasks.
The local competency was taken care of in the following manner: Exactly as the Higher SS and Police Leader was competent for his own Wehrkreis, the Main Office Chiefs were competent only locally for their own jurisdiction. That is, a Main Office Chief in Berlin was the competent supreme judicial authority only for the members of his main office; locally, that is, in the Wehrkreis.
Q. Witness, how many persons, in your estimation, came under the jurisdiction of the supreme judicial authority of Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl?
A. I do not have the exact figures about it. They were the members of the WVHA in Berlin. Perhaps, at the peak, they amounted to at most 2,000 men possibly.
Q. It is a fact, is it not, that an order issued by Himmler on 3 March 1942 incorporated the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps, as Amtsgruppe D, into the WVHA? I do not wish to speak to you about the results that this order had, and what the task of Oswald Pohl's supervision should restrict itself to. All I ask you is who was the supreme judicial authority and what was the tribunal that was competent for the investigation of punishable acts in a concentration camp? I take as an example the concentration camp of Buchenwald. For instance, if the suspicion arose t hat a member of the guard of the concentration camp at Buchenwald had committed a punishable act, who was competent to investigate the punishable act, which court was competent and who was the supreme judicial authority who had to confirm the sentences?
A. If a member who came under the punishable code, in other words who was under the war law, had committed a punishable act, then this punishable act was investigated by the Higher SS and Police Leader for Buchenwald.
That is Obergruppenfuehrer Erbprinz Waldeck, who was the Higher SS and Police Leader there, appointed a legal officer to carry out the investigation reports were then sent to the competent SS and Police court for Buchenwald in Weimar. The sentence, or the decrees which were issued by that Tribunal, were then signed by Erbprinz Waldeck in Weimar, who was the competent SS and Police Leader; that is, sentences, indictments, orders to withdraw indictments. If the SS Leader was convicted then the sentence of the tribunal was sent from Weimar directly to the Reichsfuehrer SS for his approval.
Q. From your explanations, it can be seen that Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl as Chief of the WVHA had nothing to do with punishable acts in the concentration camps, at least as far as his function as supreme judicial authority was concerned.
A. Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl had nothing to do with decrees which referred to concentration camps in a court matter. He did not even have the possibility to intervene. I remember one case where somebody intervened from Berlin upon orders of the Reichsfuehrer. The result was that the competent SS and Police Leader raised an objection with the Reichsfuehrer because he had disregarded his rights. That was the case of an examination which had been ordered by the Reichsfuehrer in the concentration camp of Hertogenbosch in Holland. I recall that Obergruppenfuehrer Rauter had written a letter to the Reichsfuehrer and had complained about the fact that Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl had intervened in his jurisdiction without having the right to do so. I personally am of the opinion that he was right in this letter, although there was an order of the Reichsfuehrer to Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl on account of the seriousness of the case, or due to the urgency he himself intervened immediately. The proceedings should have been carried out in the Hague by the Police Court there. They should have transferred the documents to the competent court without taking into consideration the order.
Q. You have repeatedly mentioned the agency of the Higher SS and Police Leader. Give us in a few sentences a description of the position of the Higher SS and Police leaders and their tasks, particularly with reference to the fact of whether it is correct or not that these Higher SS and Police Leaders, independently of their rank within the SS -- whether they were major generals or generals of the command, -- were representatives of Himmler within a certain area; in other words, were the regional representatives of the Chief of the Security Police and the SD and, generally s peaking, representatives of the chief of German police and the Reichsfuehrer himself.
A. As I saw it -- and I wish to state that I was not employed by the Higher SS and Police Leaders and therefore I know these things only from the point of view of an observer just as I saw them-the Higher SS and Police Leaders were, so to say, the kings in the certain areas which they were assigned to. That is to say, in every Wehrkreise, for the interests of the police and the public security and also for the interest of the SS, a certain leadership was created, and particularly administratively; the administrative head had something to say in the Wehrkreis and was responsible for all questions arising within the area. They were the only persons competent.
Q. In that capacity then there were also supreme judicial authorities?
A. Yes, in the capacity the Higher SS and Police Leaders were the supreme judicial authorities, and generally speaking it was carried out in the following manner, that the Higher SS and Police Leaders were only the supreme judicial authority with the exception of a few lincks of the Main offices and if I do not take into consideration the conditions out in the front line. The important elements in the jurisdiction were the Higher SS and Police Leaders in their capacity as supreme judicial authorities of the Reich.
Q. And under their supervision came all the commandants and the guards of the concentration camps so far as investigations of punishable acts were concerned?
A. Yes. Well, it was in the following manner, that all the members who were within the area o f the Higher SS and Police Leader, in other words, who were employed there, were subordinate to the Higher SS and Police Leader judicially and disciplinary, and by this subordination the Higher SS and Police Leader had the possibility of forcing any of the members to comply with his orders and to take any measures against a man in his area. Of course, it was carried out in the following way, that besides this particular judicial and disciplinary subordination a factural subordination under a different commander was possible. For instance, the administrative leaders were subordinate to the Higher SS and Police Leader, or to the division commander, judicially and disciplinary, but structurally they could also be subordinate to other principals, the administrative officers, on the highest level to the WVHA, but that only referred to practical questions.
Q. Witness do you know now at the present moment a trial is being carried out at Dachau against members of the concentration camp of Buchenwald, and furthermore that one of the defendants is SS Obergruppenfuehrer Erbprinz Zu Waldeck-Pyrmont, and do you know furthermore that he is a defendant for the particular reason because as Higher SS and Police Leader he was at the sane time competent as supreme judicial authorities for the concentration camp of Buchenwald within his area?
A. Yes, I know that.
Q. Witness, you testified that Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl was supreme judicial authority for the members of the WVHA and that the circle of persons controlled by him amounted at the utmost to two thousand, in other words, to those officials and officers who were directly or immediately connected with the WVHA and working there in Berlin. I ask you now what were Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl's opinions and what lines did he follow in his capacity as such? What did you observe yourself as a legal officer of the WVHA in that respect?
A. I have to state here that Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, I know of no second case in my career has performed the functions of a supreme judicial authority and much understanding. I believe that he is the only supreme judicial authority in the whole Reich who actually was so much interested in the jurisdiction in the SS Courts. He himself currently instructed that every sentence of importance be published so that the people would be scared and warned at the same time. He furthermore urged me to at least once a month make reports before the members of the WVHA I had to explain to them on the basis of sentences and other examples how hard someone could be punished who had committed a punishable act. Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl was particularly interested in corruption in every respect. He himself participated in court proceedings. I don't believe that any of the supreme judicial authorities ever participated in court proceedings but Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl did that. He also discussed the facts with the judges, and asked them for a conference, and in every respect showed much understanding which I never met again during my career.
On the other hand, in order to complete the picture, sometimes he stood too long in front of an accused, as long as he was not absolutely convinced of his innocence. But generally speaking he would leave the judges and the other men alone, and it never would occur that he intervened after actions had been baken by the court, nor that he would not let himself convince, when his opinion had been a different one before. Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl was very much liked with all the judges and other officials of the judicial district he contacted. Sometimes they were afraid to make statements in front of him due to his drastic manner of speech. However, they always liked to talk to him and they all liked him, not only myself- I was not the only one who liked him, but everybody else did.
Q. Are you in a position to give us a few examples which would illustrate the opinion by which Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl was guided while carrying out his task as supreme judicial authority?
A. Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl undoubtedly was a very, very severe supreme judicial authority. He tried by means of the tribunal to punish all cases of corruption as hard as he possible could. On the other, hand, however, he let small fry alone when they made certain mistakes, when they did not stand on guard when they were supposed to, and other military law violations which were of a rather small nature. I can recall one case where he was present during the proceedings in a courtroom, and he approached the examiner there and told him that his opinion was that the woman who was being indicted there should be left alone and be released immediately because after all her violation was so small that it was not worth while having a trial. Against his own people, however, if he was convinced of the guilt of the defendant, he proceeded in a very hard manner. He did intervene for anyone if he knew that generally speaking that man was a docent man, or when he had to assume or when he knew that was a unique violation. However, if he saw that that was man who was really corrupt or when he had actually committed a serious crime, then he was absolutely hard and he did not let anybody else talk him out of it, and he also told his opinion about those matters to the Reichsfurhrer himself quite often.