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.
I have the right to confirm or reject such judgments but could not increase the severity of the sentences. If I had quashed, confirmed, or altered the judgment, the case was legally closed."
Is that correct statement of things as they actually existed?
A. No, the conditions were such that Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl only was connected with one single court as chief judicial officer: that was the SS and Police Court 3 at Berlin. To this local court of Berlin, of course, only were channeled such cases, and Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl had to deal with the cases that referred to his district in Berlin. Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl had the authority and duty, as chief judicial officer, to review and confirm sentences which the judge submitted to him. He could refuse to confirm such a sentence. In that case, a new trial would have to be instituted. Within certain limits, he could also change the verdict as was prescribed in the military penal code by lowering the sentence, or by setting aside certain punishments. However, then the court, in turn, was always able to impose the verdicts which had been confirmed by the chief judicial officer and submit them to the higher agency. And the decision of the chief judicial officer was not final in such cases, but whenever a sentence was not confirmed it would be submitted to the Main Office SS courts, and it would then be submitted in turn to the Reichsfuehrer-SS.
Q. In the event that a sentence was--or a decision-referred to Pohl for review, and he quashed it, was it not returned for a retrial?
A. I have just stated that when the sentence was not confirmed by the chief supreme judicial authority a new had to be started. However, the matter was first submitted to the Main office SS courts which then could object to the confirmation or the non-confirmation, and I can say from my memory that sentences which were not confirmed could be confirmed by the Main Office SS courts for the chief judicial officer. However, a sentence that had already been confirmed could not be rescinded by the Main Office SS courts, and only in the negative case could the Main Office SS courts interfere. That is as far as I can remember today.
Q. Witness, you stated that the defendant Pohl had nothing whatsoever to do with punishments, disciplinary actions, carried out in the concentration camps, that there was no possibility at all for him to intervene in such matters. Pohl, however, did interfere in such matters as these, didn't he?
A. I did not state that he was not able to interfere at all. The possibility existed for him to interfere in a case where he was not competent, as supreme judicial authority, and where the files went to the Reichsfuehrer for confirmation, or to the Main Office SS courts.
To interfere in such cases by means of submitting his opinion, of course this could only be done where big trials were condemned; for example, big corruption trials which went beyond the framework of the concentration camp, which then were directly handled by the Main Office SS courts. In such cases, Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, by submitting his opinion to the Main Office SS court, or to the Reichsfuehrer SS, could put his opinion down on paper.
This opinion then went, together with the files and it was submitted to the Reichsfuehrer or to the Main Office SS courts.
Q. On Direct Examination, witness, you stated that the defendant Pohl was greatly interested in curbing corruptions which existed in concentration camps, and he went out of his way to see that such things would not occur. And you stated also that Pohl had gotten along exceedingly well with everyone who worked with him. Was he a particularly good friend of Dr. Morgen--Komrad Morgen?
A. I did not -
Q. Would you please tell us just who Dr. Morgan was?
A. May I first answer the first question?
Q. Go right ahead.
A. I did not testify that Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl was particularly interested in corruption trials in the concentration camps, but, in general, he was interested in the circle which was subordinated to him, in the same way, the troops, the SS and also the corruption trials in the concentration camps. The relationship of Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl to Dr. Morgen was very bad. However, the relationship which Morgen had to Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl -- he had the same relationship with a large number of supreme judicial authorities and, as far as I am able to judge these things between Morgen and Pohl, there were not factual differences, but there were differences which arose and they were quite of a personal nature. At least the differences had arisen for personal reasons. Morgen was a man who, according to his entire nature and in his behavior, was scarcely popular with any superior. Morgen was not only -
THE PRESIDENT: We are not very much interested in this biography of a man we never heard of before. Your question was, "Was Pohl a good friend of Morgen" and that lead into a long biography, which would seem to be unnecessary.
DR. HOFFMAN: (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT SCHEIDE) Your Honor, may I say the following briefly. This man Morgen was one of the principal witnesses in the SS trial before the International Military Tribunal in the defense. At the time no doubts were maintained as to his veracity and I don't think that this witness is able to testify here as to the veracity or non-veracity of this witness Morgen. I therefore request that the further statements of the witness about the veracity or otherwise of the witness Morgen should not be admitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Nobody asked the witness to testify about the veracity of Morgen.
All that was asked was, "Was Pohl a good friend of Morgen?" Now ask another question and see if we can get on the track again.
Q. The question which I wished to have answered was, "What was the relationship of Konrad Morgen with the Defendant Pohl?
A. The relationship was not good at all.
Q. So far as the official relationship is concerned, that is, what duries did Knorad Morgen have and in what way was he concerned with the Defendant Pohl?
A. Morgen was the Chief of an Investigation Commission in the concentration camps. He was a member of the Main Office SS Courts and he belonged to the department which dealt with the corruption cases. He received his orders directly from the Reichsfuehrer SS and at the most he had the duty to assist Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl and to send him reports just as he did as the Chief of a Main Office in the RSHA -- in the form of reports about the concentration camps about jurisdiction and so on.
Q. If I understand you correctly, Dr. Konrad Morgen was concerned with investigation of cases of corruption in concentration camps, is that right?
A. For the most part, yes. However, he also dealt with other cases, the killing of prisoners and severe crimes which had happened in concentration camps which were so extensive that an individual, namely, the local court officer, could not deal with the larger and more important matters.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Did the Tribunal understand you to say Morgen made reports to Pohl as to what he found out in concentration camps?
WITNESS: No, I spoke only of the possibility. Morgen had to submit reports to a number of Main Office Chiefs about the progress of the proceedings. This was done because these reports were also sent to the RSHA.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Just a minute. Didn't I understand you to say he made reports to Pohl?
WITNESS: No, I stated that actually he would have had to submit such reports to Pohl. However, this was one of the points which caused the break between the two, because Morgen did not submit such reports to Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: I understand you to say that he would have to make them, but didn't make them, is that right?
WITNESS: No, he did not do it.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Then the translation is not coming through on what you say then. Now, what did you say about the reports that Morgen made to Pohl, about investigations in concentration camps and killings and other things there?
WITNESS: May I summarize once more? Morgen had the duty to submit reports to all Main Offices which had something to do with the concentration camps and to the Reichsfuehrer SS, as well as to the Main Office SS Courts and to report to them about his activity in the concentration camps. However, he avoided submitting such reports to Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl. Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, whenever he received such reports, only received them through other channels, and had them submitted to him by the Reichsfuehrer. However, Morgen himself did not submit such reports to Pohl.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: That's'all I want to know. That is all. That's what I asked you.
Q. Witness, on direct examination you referred to the action, the court action, which was taken against von Sauerzweig. It concerned corruption in concentration camps and in this respect I would like to introduce into evidence the affidavit of Dr. Konrad Morgen, NO-1900, which will be Exhibit 549.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, what is the purpose of introducing this affidavit in evidence?
MR. HIGGINS: I should like simply rather than introduce it into evidence at this point, I would like simply to read it and have the witness later comment on it as it differs from the testimony which he gave on the same subject matter when he was testifying on direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Now that covers too much territory. You want to impeach this witness in other words?
MR. HIGGENS: That's right, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: By showing that some other witness who is not here has made a different statement? Well, I don't think you've laid the foundation for it. You can, if you like, read the portion of the affidavit which varies from the witness' testimony and then ask him if his statement from the witness stand is still his statement, whether he wishes to change it or not, but I don't think the document itself is admissible nor should it be read into the record. Confront this witness with some contradictory statement, if you wish, and then you will be bound by his choice of answers.
Q. Witness, you have testified to the incident which concerned the case which was brought against von Sauerzweig and you have stated that Pohl was motivated to bring this individual to justice, because he was interested in eliminating corruption from concentration camps. I should like to read from the affidavit of Dr. Morgen and ask you whether or not after you have heard the section which I wish to read, whether or not you still contend that Defendant Pohl was primarily interested in eliminating the corruption and hence was clear of it?
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, if this is the affidavit which had just been submitted by the prosecutor, then I request that I can point out the fact that this affidavit is not provided with any dates and does not state where it was given and as far as I have it here, it was not provided with any signature.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the copy that the Tribunal has appears to have been signed on the 28th of January, 1947 at Nurnberg.
DR. HOFFMANN: That is correct, but what year, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: 1947, this year.
DR. HOFFMANN: I beg pardon. The date is missing in the copy which was turned over to me.
THE PRESIDENT: This is apt to run into song time. We'll have it after lunch -- for dessert.
THE MARSHAL: This Tribunal is in recess until 1345.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 3 June 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. SCHMIDT-KLEVENOW - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. HIGGINS:
Q. Before the recess, witness, we were discussing the case which was brought against Dr. Georg von Sauerzweig which concerned the corruption in connection with the depot at Warsaw. You had stated on direct testimony that the defendant Pohl was terribly interested in curbing corruption wherever it existed. I should like to read a section of the affidavit of Dr. Morgen and ask you if you stick to your original contention.
"First I came upon the main quartermaster depot of the SS in Warsaw under the administration of SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl. Since this time closer relationships between Pohl and me existed. This was about in March 1941 when I arrested the chief of this quartermaster depot in Warsaw, Dr. Georg von Sauerzweig, with his entire staff because of corruption on a large scale. Thereupon Sauerzweig was indicted, sentenced, and shot. The verdict had been appealed up to Hitler. However, the repeal was refused. Also, a few others were shot and several persons were sentenced to several years in the penitentiary."
DR. SEIDL (For the defendant Oswald Pohl): Your Honor, before the recess we received Document NO-1900, which is just being read to the witness. The translation which just came through the channels is such that it cannot possibly be regarded as equal to the English reading. I would consider it reasonable, therefore, if the witness would be given a copy of this affidavit so that he can possibly take knowledge of the exact contents of those particular passages which are being read to him by the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have a German translation?
MR. HIGGINS: I don't believe we have an extra copy, Your Honor.
I thought a copy had been distributed to the witness. Perhaps one of the defense counsel could lend us one.
I continue.
Q. "Sauerzweig's crime consisted therein that in a grand style he conducted lootings of Poles, Jews, and confiscations, and sold the stolen property by trucks whereby he pocketed the profit and distributed it partly among the other officers. One or two trucks went to Pohl himself. Among them was a huge picture depicting a well-know Polish battle. However, he personally did not present this to Pohl but said, 'I have saved this. Now you place this in a safe place, too. You are my superior headquarters and I deliver it to you.'" Then he goes on to state that "one of the main participants of this corruption affair was Pohl's adjutant, Hauptsturmfuehrer Paulsen; and I have opened proceedings against him; and I have transmitted the file to the Main Office SS courts.
On this occasion Pohl became active. He started to make all sorts of difficulties for me and supervised my entire activity to the maximum through his legal officer, Obersturmbannfuehrer Schmidt-Klevenow."
Do you still contend, witness, that Pohl was terribly interested in curbing corruption that existed in the concentration camps and activities subordinate to him?