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 However, a sentence that had already been confirmed could not be rescinded by the Main Office SS courts, and only in the negative case could the Main Office SS courts interfere.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?
A. I don't know. I am not quite clear about it. Whether this matter had anything to do with Saurzweig. All that matters Saurzweig and I were in connection with the concentration camps, of course. There were no concentration camps at the time that particularly Sauerzweig, that I recall, correctly had nothing to do with the concentration camps, and the point of that is it is not direct that I, as it is said here, "in the record" supervised the activity so far as I could. Of the activity of Morgen, first, that I did not know Morgen at the time, and secondly, I did not work on this particular Sauerzweig case. All I knew and all that became known to me was that proceedings were started against him. The investigator at the time was the then Obersturmfuehrer Morgen, whose name appeared at this occasion for the first time. I did not know him at the time.
Q. The depot at Warsaw was under the administration of the defendant Pohl, was it not?
A. I did not know that. The depot was a branch of the WVHA, as there were several in the Reich and the occupied territories.
Q. You knew that corruption existed there, did you not?
A. You mean in the main Economic Camp?
Q. Referring to this specific incident?
A. Yes, about the Economic Camp. I found out that fact when Obersturmfuehrer Morgen had been advised to carry out the proceedings there; and that particular proceeding became known to me.
Q. From the testimony of Dr. Morgan here, it appears that Pohl was a party to this step. Did you know anything about that? About Pohl realizing a personal aim?
A. I did not know anything about it.
Q. Coming to another matter.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Just a moment. Are you the Schmidt-Klevenow that is mentioned in here as being one of the ones who was mixed up in this assignment?
A. Yes, Schmidt-Klevenow, that is I. In the record, that is, yes.
Q. Yes.
A. As I just said, even I had nothing to do with the entire matter, which at the time I did, now, know Morgen. All I knew was that he was in the Reich Service from the beginning. However, I myself had nothing to do with the proceedings. Neither did I work on it when I heard or saw about it. What I did hear about it and all I did hear was the sentence after that; all I read was the sentence.
Q. So you deny that you were in this, yourself and Pohl?
A. I would not work on the affair of Sauerzweig, and furthermore, Pohl knew of the Sauerzweig case or the trial, that I did not know. I always heard about this, when we received the sentence, and when I was sent to Reichsfuehrer that is what it came through with. I believe I had to write the opinion to the Reichsfuehrer about this, but I could not reach an opinion of the whole complex --
Q. I did not ask you several questions to answer. I asked you if you deny participation in this affair as set out in this record. You can answer that, yes or no?
A. I did not get that?
Q. I just asked you a question. Do you deny or admit your participation in this affair as set out in this affidavit?
A. No, I deny that.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: All right.
BY MR. HIGGINS:
Q. You knew about the trial carried out against Koch at Buchenwald?
A. The trial of Koch also was carried out by a special commission that is by Morgen, who had the case, and I never saw the files, but I know the Koch trial, from the first main proceedings where I participated as a representative of Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl and following the wish of the court together with one representative each of the Main Offices was represented and I heard the first proceedings in Weimar, and that was where I learned of the Koch trial prior to that I had no knowledge about the files.
All I had was a general knowledge that he had been charged with corruption, and also of killing of inmates.
Q. You stated that you represented the WVHA in this trial. You were there. You participated in the trial?
A. I participated as a visitor at the first main proceedings, which then adjourned, and I withdrew. However, in the later proceeding I did not participate.
Q. Is it true that former proceedings against Koch had been quashed by Himmler?
A. I did not know that.
Q. You did not know of prior investigations of Koch for corrupt activity at Buchenwald?
A. You mean prior to that, you mean prior to the trial, prior to the main trial?
Q. Yes, prior to the main trial?
A. Prior to my participation in the main trial that I knew generally speaking that Koch was charged with corruption and killing of inmates, I did not know any details, and of any interruptions by the Reichsfuehrer.
Q. Investigations of corruptions and murders in the concentration camps were discouraged by the defendant Pohl, weren't they? Investigations of conditions within the camp?
A. I did not know that.
Q. Don't you think it would be quite a normal condition of the mind for an individual who is in charge of the administration of concentration camps to have corruption within those camps disclosed?
A. Would you repeat the question please. I did not understand it.
Q. What I had asked is this. Pohl as administrator of the concentration camps, it seems, would be anxious to have investigations of conditions within the camps prevented and obstructed.
Don't you think that would be true? In other words, he was responsible for the administration of the camps, and any corruption which was found to have existed there would have reflected adversely on him?
A. Yes, that is correct. And I believe that Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl would have interfered if he had heard of such corruption case, or if he had received knowledge of such case. I know of no singular case apart from those I just mentioned where there was an intervention.
Q. You said then with the exception of the cases -- the several cases you have cited previously, that Pohl knew nothing about the corruption that existed in the camps, and murders carried out there?
A. I never did hear about it, and nothing was presented to me in such matter. I can not state in here that Pohl did not know anything about it, so I have to assume it, because I would have learned about that if it had been through him. Now in the concentration camps that corruption took place I knew of no other case than those that are known anyway.
Q. Is it possible if a corruption case didn't or did happen that he knew nothing about?
A. I would not know anything about it.
Q. Have you any knowledge of the corruption involving Gruppenfuehrer Fegelein, and Sturmbannfuehrer Fassbaender, that is F-A-S-S-B-A-E-N-D-E-R.
A. No, no. Never heard about it. No.
Q. That was in the beginning of 1942. Referring to the affidavit which you have, and which I read from previously, Morgen states on page 3 of the affidavit that "The third big case dealt with the administration of the entire troop training center Debitscha in Poland. Its Chief, Obersturmbannfuehrer Lechebusch, not only worked for his own pocket but even founded a special cover firm with forged papers which sold enormous quantities of goods by way of the black market.
Even before the case against him had opened, he shot himself. This was in the beginning of 1942." Did you know anything about that particular incident?
A. I know the Lechebusch case and I also knew that Morgen had been ordered to investigate the matter, and when he came back he explained to me that he had placed a pistol on the table of the then Sturmbannfuehrer Lechebusch so he could shoot himself, otherwise, it would have possibly involved other circles, that is how he expressed himself. However, I do not know any details about this entire matter, because I don't have any files of the evidence in my hands, nor any details.
Q. On direct examination a question was put to you concerning Case-A. That is, the condition existing in the event of the advancing occupied armies threat to the concentration camps. It stated that in such a case the Higher -SS and Police Leaders took the entire control of the concentration camps from all the other authorities. Did you not?
A In the order which I read, it said that in Case "A", the concentration camps were under the orders of the higher SS, and Police Leaders. I did not know any further details, and as it meant when enemy troops approached. Originally I was of the opinion that "A" meant the case of war, but apparently that was not meant by it.
Q Are you of the opinion that the higher SS and Police Leaders took over entirely, or were the responsible only for the security measures concerned? Isn't it quite possible that the WVHA remained in charge of internal administration of these camps?
A Well, I can not testify to that effect. I did not know it. I interpreted the order that when the enemies were close to the concentration camp, the higher SS and Police Leader had the entire authority over the camp. How the order was meant and whether it was to be interpreted in another manner, I do not know.
Q Can you tell us how it was carried out?
A No.
Q You don't know that upon the approach of the Allied Armies, the commanders continued to go to the defendant Pohl and Gluecks with their problems?
A No, I don't know that.
MR. HIGGINS: That is all the questions.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q Witness, are you in custody now?
A Yes. At the present time I am in custody in the jail of Nurnberg.
Q How long have you been in custody?
A I have been in custody in Nurnberg since 14 January, and the entire custody dates from 8 May 1945.
Q Are you under indictment or any charge at this time?
A No.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SEIDL:
Q Witness, in the affidavit of Dr. Morgen, it is asserted that you, in your capacity of court officer of the WVHA, made certain troubles for him, allegedly made certain troubles for him in investigations on Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl's order. I am asking you did the defendant Pohl at any time give you an order to intervene in the investigations of Dr. Morgen with the aim possibly to hamper these investigations?
A No, that was not the case. On the contrary, he told me not to get mixed up in the matters Dr. Morgen was investigating, particularly due to the personal relationship that existed between him and Dr. Morgen.
Q Did you, by yourself, take any steps which could have resulted as Dr. Morgen said in his affidavit?
A No, I never tried anything against him.
Q Were you of the impression that Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl liked it when the Hauptamt SS-Court formed a commission in order to uncover corruption cases of great style from a certain point.
A Yes, that was the case, all right, and the relationship between Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl and the chief of this commission, Morgen, was very good at first. Morgen, as far as I can recall, was always supported by Pohl. I was never asked. When Morgen came to see us, he went to see Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl directly, and the two then discussed the measures that they were to take. Once in a while I took care of formalities by giving Morgen papers or documents, etc., personnel files, and what have you, but apart from that I did not interfere in his activity.
Q You testified just that the relationship also became worse, amongst other things, because Dr. Morgen did not give any reports to Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl about the result of his investigations. The defendant Pohl now asserts that he had something to say about Dr. Morgen's activity as he carried out large investigations, that he had not had to many results of this entire matter.
Did you ever hear any statements made by the defendant Pohl to you which confirmed that statement?
A Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl did not think very much of Dr. Morgen's ability and the way he worked. I myself am of the opinion that although in the case of Sauerzweig he did a good job, and on the basis of that particular ability of his he was called upon to work on larger projects. That is my personal opinion now, that he could not possibly be up to taking care of this matter. According to my opinion, he was not up to the Koch trial either.
Q A few minutes ago you said that you participated in the first or main trial against the commandant of Buchenwald. What was your impression with reference to the preparation of this trial by Dr. Morgen?
A During the main trial, I was of the impression--and not only I had that impression but also all the listeners, and they were all the representatives of almost all the main offices-- We were of the opinion that that trial had been prepared in a very bad manner. In the main proceedings there were certain questions that arose and which no one had anticipated. For instance, the defendant Koch, with reference to the killing of inmates, referred to the point that he had received an order to kill certain inmates and that that was by the Reichsfuehrer. The Reichsfuehrer, however, was never asked if that was correct. That is where the main trial broke up, and they had to go into recess; they had to adjourn, because they wanted to break up Koch's suggestion that he had acted upon orders. The President of the Tribunal, Herr Haendel, told the jury to recess, but unfortunately he did not know the files because Herr Morgen had given him the documents which consisted of tens, if not twenties, of documents, and therefore the main proceedings could not be carried out any further. Thereupon, the main trial was adjourned.
I personally told that to Dr. Morgen in a manner that he did not misunderstand in front of all the other comrades.
His statements, which are aimed at me particularly, are to be based upon the fact that he in the meantime somehow became an enemy of mine, and I assume that he believes that I was the instigator of the bad personal relationship which he had with Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl.
Q Did Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, however, prior to, during, or after the trial, make an attempt to protect Koch and to save him from trial? At least Koch was shot later on.
A No; on the contrary, Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, when Koch's guilt was established, tried with his entire power to have the sentence carried out or executed as soon as possible.
Q That actually happened?
A The sentence was carried out shortly before the capitulation on orders of the Reichsfuehrer.
Q It says in the affidavit a little further down -- and I quote:
"Because of Pohl's activity there was also an order released in August 1944 whereby SS judges would have no access to concentration camps without the special permission of Pohl."
Now, I ask you, witness, did you ever hear any such order by Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl?
A No, such an order is unknown to me, and I do not know that such an order ever existed. If such an order had been issued, I am sure that Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl would have informed me as his legal officer and liaison officer to the court.
DR. SAID: That is all. No further questions.
BY DR. HOFFMANN: Attorney for defendant Scheide.)
Q Witness, where did you have your office in Berlin?
A My office in Berlin was in Unter den Eichen.
Q How large was that building?
A Well, that was quite a large block. It had three court yards approximately. I could not tell you how large it was actually. It was quite a building, and it had been damaged by bombs.
Q How many rooms were there in that building?
A I can not tell you, but very many.
Q How many according to your guess?
A Well, I would say approximately 1,000 rooms possibly evern more.
Q How long did it take to walk from the office of the defendant Pohl up to the room of the defendant Scheide, my client?