In that respect he always got through with his idea to the Reichsfuehrer.
Q. Is it not correct to say that Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, once wrote an essay, which was published in the Gazette of the Main Office SS Court?
Q. Yes, in 1940 - 41- the first corruption scandal occurred of the SS. That was the case of Sauerzweig. Sauerzweig at the time was sentenced to death and shot. On the occasion of this first case Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl himself wrote a report, or rather let's say he made a statement, or he gave an explanation which was directed to all the administrative heads in the Waffen-SS. That particular statement was written in such an exemplary manner and exhorted the administrative officers to keep away from corruption. That this order, which had been sent to all the administrative officers, was found good enough by the Main Office SS to be published in the so-called Mittcilungsblaetter of Gazette of the SS, and this was road by a large circle of people outside the administration.
Q. Witness, you testified that the only persons competent for the prosecution of punishable acts in the concentration camps were the SS and Police Courts within which area they were, and that the supreme judicial authorities were responsible for the confirmation of the sentences. That is, the Higher SS and Police Leaders of the particular area. Do you know of any complaints which wore addressed to Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl or to the WVHA which dealt with bad conditions in the concentration camps, and what did Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl do about it if by any chance he received knowledge of such conditions?
A. During my activity, I experienced it three times, that either anonymously or by higher agencies he received information on bad conditions in the concentration camps. The first case was the case of Hertogenbosch. Here, based on an anonymous letter, we were told that the leaders of the camp were drunk all the time.
Everybody was drinking and whoring in the camp and furthermore an inmate was beaten by one of the leaders. Generally speaking the camp was in such a situation that somebody had to intervene. Thereupon it was ordered by Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl to immediately proceed to Hertogenbosch. A plane was put at my disposal by one of the collaborators. At Hertogenbosch I started an investigation, and I received the following litteral order from Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, "to clean up the angias stables of Hertogenbosch." I went there. I arrested all the leaders in the camp with the exception of the physician, and the administrative chief, and I immediately requested their transfer by teletype to Oranienburg.
All of them were transferred to Oranienburg; court proceedings were started against them and the camp commander was sentenced to seven years penal servitude and the man with the lowest rank was given four years penal servitude.
I know of a second case which occurred in Warsaw. It was reported to us that in inmate had allegedly been shot while trying to escape. That inmate, however, had allegedly been shot because the camp commandant wanted to cover up certain irregularities which occurred in the camp. One of my colleagues immediately drove to Warsaw and arrested both the camp commandant and the protective custody officer and had them transferred to Oranienburg under arrest. The proceedings had to be carried out by the Hauptamt-SS Court, that is the ZBV Court, special court as a main department of the Main Office SSCourt had been created in Munich in order to try corruption and other cases, as for instance, the killing of inmates in the concentration camps. And they were particularly dealt with by that particular department in Munich exclusively. The trial against the camp commandant of Warsaw had not been finished, according to my opinion, up to the capitulation, but they were both in jail until the capitulation.
And in the third case Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl received a piece of information that the camp commandant of Stutthof had ordered that an inmate who was being suspected of having made a wrong statement before the Tribunal was hanged at the wall, and had to hang there until he would have told the truth. The case also was immediately grasped by us, and the man responsible for that act was put before a tribunal and punished. I don't know of any other cases in which reports or complaints about punishable acts from concentration camps came directly from us.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: What punishment was inflicted upon this individual who ordered the unjust hanging?
A. I don't know of that. All I know is that he was sentenced;
what his punishment was, I do not know.
Q. He was probably sentenced by that particular SS and Police Court within which area the camp was?
A. Yes, I believe it was the SS and Police Court in Danzig.
Q. And, due to the reasons you just explained, Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl had nothing to do with the court proceedings, as such, and with the confirmation of the sentences?
A. No.
Q. That again was up to the Higher SS and Police Leader of that particular area?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, from 1940 to 1945 you were Court Officer in the WVHA. You were active in the WVHA at a time when the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps was not yet incorporated into the WVHA, organizationally? And also at the time, when the incorporation had taken place, that is, after the third of March 1942, or the first of March 1942, respectively; I ask you now, witness, did that incorporation -- I mean , the organizational incorporation of the inspectorate into the WVHA -- cause drastic changes in the way the SS Main Office was operating?
A. The later Amtsgruppe D of the WVHA was already, prior to that, a separate organic body which lost its independence neither in the SS-Main Office -- nor in the Operational Office, which the Amtsgruppe had belonged for a short time, not even the incorporation in the WVHA, nothing changed within the structure and the tasks of the Amtsgruppe D.
According to my opinion, particularly the absolutely personal subordination of the former inspectorate under the chief of the WVHA, Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl is concerned, because Amtsgruppe D, kept its own personal administration as before; it had also its own judicial administration, its own courts, and they were still separated locally from Berlin.
Q. According to your observations, did the incorporation of the inspectorate of the concentration camps have any influence on the other office groups, I mean, on the Amtsgruppe A, C, Dand W?
A. I cannot judge that very well because I was not active in the office groups, but I was immediately and directly subordinated to Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl. I do not know the connections of the in dividual Amtsgruppen to Amtsgruppen D, and W, but, generally speaking, when Amtsgruppe D was incorporated the labor assignment was dealt with. The WVHA received the concentration camps in order to possibly carry out the work together, and those agencies which dealt with questions of labor assignment contacted Amtsgruppe D through Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl. I don't know for sure, however. All I know is that Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl -
MR. ROBBINS: The witness has already said that he didn't know the answer to Dr. Seidl's question. I don't see any reason for him to continue to speculate on the influence that the incorporation had on Amtsgruppen A, B, C, and W. He said he was not associated with those Amtsgruppen, and he testified that he didn't know the answer.
DR. SEIDL: The witness explained that he did not know the details of the effects of that particular incorporation unto the other Amtsgruppen. However, tint doesn't mean, and that doesn't exclude, that the witness can give us factual statements and explanations about the fact whether anything material changed in the entire administration. And it will be up to this Tribunal to draw its own conclusions. I believe that the answer of the witness can be understood to that effect, is that correct?
WITNESS: I don't know the details. All I know is that prior to 1942, in the WVHA, and after the incorporation of the inspectorate into the WVHA, not much was changed.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. There is a good place to stop; right there. Now another question.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. Witness, you had your agency within the building of the WVHA in Berlin, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell us how often the inspector of the concentration camps, that is, SS-Gruppenfuehrer Gluecks, came to see Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl in Berlin, and what the conferences were all about, and what they were limited to respectively?
A. I know that Gruppenfuehrer Gluecks came to Berlin once a week regularly -- at least I saw him frequently, I had my offices directly underneath the office of Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, and I usually knew who came to see Pohl because I was in his ante-room quite often. However, what they spoke about during those conferences, I do not know,
Q. You furthermore testified that the WVHA, at the time of its highest personnel strength, had approximately 2,000 officials and employees, and SS officers, etc. What can you tell us about the methods of work of Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl with reference to whether he could speak about details, or if it was in the following manner, namely that he limited himself to the utmost necessary, due to the fact that the office was a big one.
MR. ROBBINS: I don't understand the question. Will Dr. Seidl repeat it, please?
THE PRESIDENT: I think I can state it more simply than Dr. Seidl possibly. He wants to know of the witness whether Pohl concerned himself with matters of general policy, or whether he gave his attention to details. Is that question suitable, Doctor?
DR. SEIDL: That, approximately, is the substance of the question, Your Honor.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. Would you like to give us your answer, witness?
A. I can only answer that question generally speaking, and only as an outside observer.
I know that Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl was over-burdened with work, and I must assume that he did not bother with details that dealt with labor assignments, or, rather, with details in the offices. He could not possibly do so. He had his office chiefs for that, and all the other colleagues. And he had to trust them. In how far Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl himself intervened in the details of the individual offices, I can only tell you about myself. He never did intervene in my office by himself or on his own.
Q. That is sufficient. Do you know anything about an order of Himmler's, according to which, in the so called case A, the concentration camps and their entirety in every respect were to be placed under the orders of the Higner SS and Police Leaders, and not only as it was up to that particular time, with reference to the jurisdiction?
A. I recall having seen such an order in the ante-room of Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl's office. I recall that incident today, and even more accurately, because that particular order was accompanied by a statement of Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, and to be exact the case was the following; that, if I am not wrong, Obergruppenfuehrer Schmauser approached Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, and somehow had given his opinion on this order. And Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl then said that in former times the Higher SS and Police Leaders wanted to have all their "fingers in those pies."
And they also did so and if today case A is concerned all of a sudden they don't want to have anything to do with it. That particular statement made me read that order which was in the ante-room and I can recall that it read approximately as follows: If Case A would come up, the concentration camps, everything that moves along with it, were to be brought under the immediate charge of the Higher SS and Police leaders. I understood it in the following way; namely, not only disciplinarily would they come under the jurisdiction of the Higher SS and Police leaders, but particularly also in all technical and other things connected with it. I cannot help feeling today that certain Higher SS and Police leaders act as if they had nothing to do with these things, if, for instance, a Higher SS and Police leader, who at that time was Reich Defense Commissioner in Germany, says that up to this present moment he does not know what Case A was.
Q. What was to be understood by Case A?
A. I never was told what the Case A was, but my common sense suggests that Case A is the case of an attack at any time. That is how I interpreted it.
Q. Did this order of the Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler have the result that in this particular Case A the Higher SS and Police leaders had to decide whether the concentration camp should be turned over to the advancing allied armies or whether the inmates of the concentration camps should be evacuated and transferred to camps located in areas further back?
A. Yes, that decision was to be transferred to the Higher SS and Police absolutely and directly. I can recall that during the first few months of 1945, that is when the Russians were threatening the camp of Auschwitz, Obergruppenfuehrer Schmauser called Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl in Berlin and asked him what he had to do. The whole matter was probably thought up by the Reichsfuehrer in the following manner; that in the Case A only the local police and SS leader was in a position to decide if the concentration camp was to be transferred, turned over, or what had to happen to the camp.
With these long distances of several hundreds of kilometers, particularly with the communications at the time, it was not possible to decide in Berlin. Nor do I recall of any such decisions which were taken in Berlin. I did hot have anything to do with it, but I presume I would have heard about it if that had occurred.
Q. Witness, you were legal officer in the WVHA. Did you ever hear of an action that was called Action Reinhardt, which plays a role in this case? Did you in any way have anything to do with that particular action? Did Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl at any time discuss that matter with you as his legal advisor and what can you tell us from your own knowledge about that question, particularly as far as the WVHA was connected with it?
A. I know nothing about the Reinhardt Action. Even the name itself, "Reinhardt Action", became known to me only after the capitulation. Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl never discussed these things with me and there was no reason to consult the legal officer in these matters. And I never noticed that this action played a certain part with Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl.
Q. You heard only after the capitulation that such a thing existed?
A. Yes.
DR. SEIDL: Your Honor, I have no further questions to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Robbins, cross-examination?
MR. HIGGINS: If Your Honors please, the prosecution intends to cross-examine the witness and it would be appreciated, however, if we could take a recess at this time so we can get together certain documents which we intend to use in the cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's settle on the order of cross-examination here. With the previous witness he was examined by his own counsel and then by counsel for other defendants, I believe. Is that right?
MR. HIGGINS: That's right.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you want to follow the same order in this instance?
MR. HIGGINS: It is perfectly all right with us.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait until all defense counsel have examined the witness and then the prosecution will cross-examine.
MR. HIGGINS: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Is any other counsel for the defense ready to examine this witness?
BY DR. BELZER (Counsel for the defendant Sommer):
Q. I have one question to the witness. Witness, as far as I understood you, if I understood you correctly, you stated before that with the incorporation of the concentration camp inspectorate as Amtsgruppe D into the WVHA nothing changed in the organization structure of the concentration camp inspectorate which is now Amtsgruppe D. Did I understand you correctly?
A. Generally speaking, that is correct. Of course, something did change insofar as Amtsgruppe D, if I am correct, as well as the WVHA, received new official designations, but I do not know if Amtsgruppe D had already been divided into three or four offices.
Q. I ask you for the following reason. In Amtsgruppe D there was after the subordination of the concentration camp inspectorate under the WVHA an office, Amt D-II, which dealt with the questions of labor assignment. I ask you now, witness, in the inspectorate of the concentration camps prior to this subordination to the WVHA, was there such an office?
A. I don't know that.
Q. You don't know that?
A. No, I don't.
BY DR. GAWLIK (Counsel for defendant Volk):
Q. Witness, do you know the defendant Volk?
A. Yes.
Q. How long Have you known the defendant Dr. Volk?
A. I have known Volk since he joined the WVHA and particularly entered the office Unter den Eichen. It is possible that it was in 1942. I don't recall the year. First he was working in the Geissbank, if I am not wrong, and I only knew him by his name, not personally.
Q. The defendant Dr. Volk was among other things personal expert of the defendant Oswald Pohl. That is correct, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you describe to this Tribunal what the tasks were that Dr. Volk carried out as personal expert and what his activities, generally speaking, were?
A. I cannot describe that because I do not know all about his staff so that I can't possibly hold a speech here on this. I would appreciate it if you would ask me questions.
Q. What were his activities?
A. Volk was a personal referent or expert advisor of Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl. He dealt with all those things which were personal matters of Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl and apart from that and originally with matters concerning Amtsgruppe W, in other words, matters concerning the Economic Enterprises.
Q. I shall come back to Amtsgruppe W later on, witness. Is it correct that the defendant Dr. Volk as a personal adviser did not take care of any official matters of the WVHA but only of matters which dealt with purely personal matters of the defendant Oswald Pohl?
A. Well, to that extent as you put it now, it cannot be asserted that is correct. But I am of the opinion that Volk acted for the greatest part as personal adviser that is as a private secretary of the defendant Oswald Pohl. But I'm sure he had other tasks besides this, while he carried out. However, I cannot judge this.
Q. Could you give us a few examples of things which he carried out as a personal adviser?
A. I know that he worked on the tax matters for the defendant Oswald Pohl, and I know that he worked on matters concerning requests and so forth. He also advised Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl's wife. That is he handled legal problems of economic matters.
Q. You have already mentioned witness, that the defendant Dr. Volk by only dealing with personal matters of the defendant Oswald Pohl was very much burdened with work.
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Do you know what matters of the defendant Dr. Volk dealt with in Staff W?
A. I would not know enough about it to make a statement before this Tribunal. I can only say that generally speaking he dealt with judicial things which were connected with the economic sector. That means judicial, economic questions. I do not know, however, to what extent and of what nature they were.
Q. Do you whether that the defendant Dr. Volk also worked in the field of Amtsgruppe D?
A. No. I don't think so, for the sphere of task of Hauptsturmfuehrer Volk, as I see it, had no connection with Amtsgruppe D., rather.
DR. GAWLIK: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: We will be in recess for 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken)
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. FROESCHMANN (Counsel for defendant Mummenthey): Witness, I want to ask you only a very few questions. According to the statements which have been made so far, Pohl was in charge of the WVHA. At the same time, he was a general in the SS. The chiefs of the offices were SS Leaders. What would have happened if the chief of an office had opposed the orders of Pohl?
A I don't think that could possibly have happened. Probably the Chief of the Main Office would have released the office chief from his duty immediately. If such a case had occurred, then no doubt a trial would have been instituted against the person in question.
Q What would he have been charged with?
A That depended on what he had done.
Q Insubordination?
A He would have been punished because he did not comply with an order and possibly because of sedition or desertion or whatever the case was.
Q Did you know the defendant Mummenthey?
A Yes.
Q Did you meet him frequently?
A Whenever he came to Berlin he used to visit me, and we used to discuss various things.
Q What impressions did you have about Mummenthey's personality from the contacts you had with him?
A I esteemed Mummenthey very highly. I considered him a very honest, decent comrade. We had mutual interests because both of us were jurists.
Q What concepts did he have, in particular, with regard to immoral acts?
A Mummenthey was always trying in all things to keep order within his sphere of competence, and as far as I know he also had a very good relationship with his employees.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Did Mummenthey discuss the allocation of prisoners with you?
A No.
Q Did you ever institute any proceedings, or were you able to institute any proceedings, because of treatment of prisoners which violated the principles of humanity?
A No.
DR. FROESCHMANN: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any examination by other Defense Counsel at this time? Apparently not. Mr. Robbins, you may cross examine.
Meanwhile, the interpreters have asked to make a correction in the record. The term "Gerichtsherr" was used and was translated as meaning "Judge Advocate". The interpreter now informs me that it should be translated as "Supreme Judicial Authority". That correction will be made on the record wherever the word has been used.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. HIGGINS:
Q Witness, to begin the examination, I would first like to ask you questions concerning the home offices of the various defendants in this dock, as a matter going to make the record complete. I am wondering, can you give me that information?
A. I didn't understand that.
DR. SEIDL (For Defendant Oswald Pohl): Your Honors, I object to this question. The question was not caused by direct examination, and it is not suitable in order to shake the veracity of this witness. I did not ask a question of a similar content of the witness, and I don't see any connection between this question and my direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: In the first place it is not the rule in American law, at least not the universal rule, that cross-examination must be limited to matters brought out on direct examination. It can be much broader than the direct examination. In the second place, this question is proper, or it will be when it is clarified. He is showing the acquaintance or relationship between this witness and the defendants and thereby indicating the credibility of this witness. If the witness were friendly or possibly related to any of the defendants in the box, that fact should be brought out as bearing upon the weight or credibility of his testimony. I think your question, Counsel, though is very obscure. The witness did not understand it, and neither did the Tribunal exactly. Will you reframe it?
MR. HIGGINS: Yes, your Honor, I shall.
Q. (By Mr. Higgins) Witness, I would like to ask you to tell me the place in which the offices of the several defendants here in the dock were located. I shall begin with the Defendant Pohl and ask you where his office was located?
A. Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl's office was located at Berlin in the house where the most part of the WVHA was housed.
Q. Where was the office of the Defendant Frank located?
A. The office of Obergruppenfuehrer Frank was also located in the same building, but not during the entire period of time. It happened that offices should move around the building because of destruction from air attacks, and during the last year, or during the last year and a half Obergruppenfuehrer Frank was not in the WVHA any more at all, but he was in the administrative office of the army.
Therefore he did not have anything to do any more with our agency.
Q. It is sufficient that we know where his office was located while he was chief of the Division A of the WVHA and Deputy Chief of the WVHA. Can you now tell me where the office of Georg Loerner, Chief of Division B of the WVHA was located?
A. Gruppenfuehrer Loerner was located in the same building complex Unter Den Eichen, but this was originally in another building which had a different location from the offices of Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl. After the new building had been completed, Unter Den Eichen, he was located in the same building as Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl.
Q. And the Defendant Fanslau who was subsequently chief of Division A of the WVHA?
A. Brigadefuehrer Fanslau was also located where Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl also had his offices. This was Unter Den Lichen.
Q. The Defendant Hans Loerner, Chief of Office I of Division A, where was his office located?
A. He also had his offices at Unter Den Eichen.
Q. And Defendant Vogt, Chief of Office IV of the Division A, where was his office located?
A. Until the time when he was evacuated from Berlin Vogt also had his offices in Unter Den Eichen. His agency later on was evacuated.
Q. The Defendant Tschentscher, Chief of Division B and Chief of Office I of Division B, can you tell me where his office was located?
A. Tschentscher's office was also located at Unter Den Eichen. He was in the same complex of buildings like all the others.
Q. The Defendant Scheide, Chief of Office V of Division B, could you please tell me where his office was located?
A. Scheide's offices were also located at Unter Den Lichen. He was in the same complex of buildings like all the rest of the defendants.
Q. Defendant Kiefer, please tell me where his office was located?
A. Kiefer had his offices in the same comples of buildings. However, it was located in a different house which faced a parallel street from Unter Den Eichen, but it belonged to the same group of buildings.
Q. Could you give me the same information on the Defendant Eirenschmalz, Chief of Office VI of Division C of the WVHA?
Eirenschmalz first had his offices at Unter Den Eichen in the WVHA, but as early as 1944, he was evacuated, together with his office.
Q. And the Defendant Sommer, where was his office located?
A. At Oranienburg.
Q. And the Defendant Pook was his office in Oranienburg also?
A. I must assume that. I don't know the Defendant Pook at all, but I tried to name this for the first time, and I assume that he also had his offices at Oranienburg.
Q. Where was the office of the Defendant Baier?
A. I did not understand the question.
Q. Where was the office of the Defendant Baier, who was executive officer of Division W, located?
A. The offices of Obergruppenfuehrer Baier were also located at Unter Den Eichen, Berlin,. He was in the same building as Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl.
Q. And the Defendant Hohberg, where was his office located?
A. Hohberg also had his office at Berlin, Unter Den Eichen, in the same group of buildings.
Q. The Defendant Volk, where was his office located?
A. Volk had his office in the same building where Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl was located.
Q. Can you give me information on the location of the office of the Defendant Mummenthey?
A. Mummenthey was located in Oranienburg.
Q. And the Defendant Bobermin, where was his office located?
A. Bobermin was not located at Berlin at all. He was last at Budapest as an economic expert, and before that he was located at Posen.
Q. Where was the office of the Defendant Klein, Chief of Office VIII of Division W, located?
A. Klein was last at Kranichfeld. Kranichfeld is located in the vicinity of Weimar. When he was still at Berlin at his agency he also was in the same group of buildings like the rest of the defendants.
Q. The last question put to you, Witness, by the defense counsel, concerned the action which would be taken against a chief of an office of the WVHA if he should carry out acts of resistance, and you answered that question. Now I should like to ask you a question related to the same matter. Could you tell me what would happen in the case of a chief of an office who requested to be relieved of his position as chief of that office? What would happen if that were done?
A. He first of all would have had to state the reasons why he wanted to resign, if this would have been approved the reasons which he stated for his resignation.
Q. Do you know of cases in which such requests were granted?
A. No, I don't know of any cases where such resignations were requested. In any case I don't know that anybody ever requested to be relieved from his office, that is to say, aside from some small, noncommissioned officers, or some members of lower grade who asked to be transferred to the front.
Q. Witness, you joined the NSDAP on the 1st of May, 1933, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. And in October, 1934, did you become a member of the Allgemeine SS?
A. Yes.
Q. And according to your testimony you were called into the WaffenSS in 1940?
A. Yes.
Q. Referring to testimony you have given on Direct Examination, you stated that you were responsible, as was Pohl, only for disciplinary measures to be taken against members of the WVHA employed in the main office, is that right?
A. Yes, not only in disciplinary measures but also in disciplinary and court proceedings.
Q. Then you were not concerned whatsoever with disciplinary measures and court proceedings taken against administrative personnel in the concentration camps?
A. No.
Q. I would like to read from an affidavit of the defendant Pohl in which his statements seem to conflict with a statement you have just made here. I refer to Document NO-2736, which is Exhibit 525. In paragraph 10 it is stated by Pohl:
"Moreover, as chief of the Economics and Administrative Main Office, I was, so far as I remember, Supreme Judicial Authority for all guards, fuehrer and unterfuehrer who served in the concentration camps. That is, I had full disciplinary power over them and the persons mentioned in paragraph 9. As far as I remember, the number of guard personnel in the year amounted to about 25,000 to 30,000."
This recitation of the defendant Pohl seems to contradict the statement that you have made in which you allege that these powers extended only to those engaged or occupied in the Main Office -
DR. SEIDL (Counsel for the defendant Oswald Pohl): Your Honors, as far as I am informed, the Prosecution has an affidavit, another affidavit in which the defendant Oswald Pohl has rectified the statement, and has called it a mistake.
It seems appropriate to me now that the Prosecution should inform the witness of this state of affairs during the CrossExamination.
THE PRESIDENT: The Prosecutor has not asked the witness any question yet. I cannot rule on it until the question is asked. You have made a statement to the witness, Counsel. Now, what is it you want to know.
BY MR. HIGGINS:
Q. I should like to know, witness, whether or not in view of this statement you wish to change the testimony you have given previously.
A. No, the statement of Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl-- that as far as he can recall, he had been Supreme judicial authority for the administrative personnel in the concentration camp --is incorrect. It is contrary to the legal regulations which are mentioned in the in the military penal code, and the regulations which were issued with regard to the judicial police and the SS. The situation was that Pohl was only the Supreme judicial authority for the members of the Main Office at Berlin.
Q. Then you wish to state that in this respect the defendant Pohl is in error?
A. Yes, he must have made a mistake. It is a fact that he was not the Supreme judicial Authority for the administrative leaders in the concentration camps. Anybody who has ever had anything to do with the military penal code in the SS will be able to confirm that.
Q. Then you take exception also to the statement contained in paragraph eleven of the same affidavit in which the defendant Pohl states:
"In my capacity as Supreme judicial Authority, I could, through my court officer, have proceedings instituted and had to check all judgments pronounced by SS and Police courts against persons mentioned in the categories of paragraph 9 and 10.