BY DR. HEIM (Counsel for Defendant Hohberg):
Q. Witness, when was the examination of Account R carried out at Lublin?
A. According to the document, it was in June, 1943.
Q. Do you know whether it was the beginning or end of June 1943?
A. No.
Q. And were the negotiations between you on the one hand and Dr. Hohberg and Dr. Wenner on the other hand because of the credit of thirty million to the DWB -- did that happen before or after the examination which was carried out by Vogt?
A. As far as I can remember, this was done four to six weeks previously; that, before June.
Q. That was before the examination of Vogt?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you still recall whether and to what extent you told Dr. Wenner and Dr. Hohberg about the source of the money of the Reichardt Fund?
A. Whether in the course of this conversation we discussed the matter at all, if we discussed the Reinhardt Fund at all -- I don't believe so, because the conversation dealt only with the question of the credit. Where the loan was to come from, that was rather without any particular interest for Hohberg. He was interested only in obtaining the loan.
Q. Therefore, there is no possibility that the co-defendant Hohberg could know anything of the Action Reinhardt at the moment when he negotiated about the loan with you?
MR. ROBBINS: I object to the wording of the question.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection sustained.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q. Do you know that the Defendant Hohberg in the end of June 1943 discontinued his activities as economic auditor of the DWB?
A. Yes, I found out about that.
Q. In your opinion, is it possible that Dr. Hohberg before he left the position as economic auditor heard anything about the results of the auditing work that was carried out by Vogt at Lublin?
A. I am unable to say that. I don't think so however. After all this had nothing to do with the examination which was carried out by Hohberg. Vogt was a Reich auditor, and Dr. Hohberg was an economic auditor.
Q. With regard to document NO-1266, Prosecution Exhibit 483, which is in Document Book 19, Page 15, of the German text and Page 12 of the English text, there is a file note of Dr. Hohberg with regard to the conversation which he had with you on 26 June 1943. I now want to ask you the following question: What was the purpose of the visit at your office by Dr. Hohberg and Dr. Wenner, as described in this document?
A. We were dealing with the technical decision with regard to foreign exchange. I assume that Dr. Hohberg asked me at the time about the approval for foreign exchange, about the fund which had accumulated in the Deposit 12. I hardly occupied myself with the origin of these funds, but I believe that the entire conversation was only an inquiry of Dr. Hohberg with regard to the technical treatment of the foreign exchange. It is extraordinarily difficult for me today to reconstruct exactly a case which was of such minor interest to me. I am unable to tell you the whole thing exactly, but I assume that it happened in that way.
Q. Witness, if I have understood you correctly, the visit of Dr. Hohberg at your office on 22 June 1943 was only for the purpose of having a discussion with you with regard to the authorization of foreign exchange?
A. Yes, it was information which he tried to obtain from me and which he actually did obtain.
Q. In cross examination by the Defense Counsel of the defendant Vogt you stated that the establishment of an economic inspector was necessary for the exact supervision of the food in the concentration camps.
I now ask you: Would the appointment of an economic inspector which you considered necessary, be identical with Pohl's plan to appoint the defendant Hohberg as an economic inspector?
A. That can not be identical. Hohberg, after all, was an economic auditor to whom I referred would have had to be an official of the Reich.
Q. Can you tell me on this occasion if in Document NO-1954, Prosecution Exhibit 529, the appointment of Dr. Hohberg to the economic inspectorship by Pohl, which has been mentioned here, was actually carried out or not?
A. I cannot answer this question.
Q. Well, then, can you tell me at least if this title was ever used for the defendant Hohberg in the WVHA or in the DWB?
A. I don't think so. It certainly would have come to my attention; after all, it is quite a big title, economic inspector, and as far as I know Hohberg at least did not use this title.
Q. Did you ever discuss with the defendant Hohberg and did you have any closer contact with him?
A. I had no official contact with Hohberg whatsoever, with the exception of this credit action.
Q. Now, my final question: Did you ever have any social contacts with him?
A. No.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I have no further questions.
BY DR. FRITSCH (Counsel for defendant Baier):
Q. Witness, as far as I know, you have known Baier since the year 1937?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. In the year 1937 Baier was appointed Director of SS Administrative Training School at Dachau?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have anything to do with that school?
A. Yes, in a certain way I was the inspector of that school.
Q. Was that in your capacity as Office Chief of Amtsgruppe A?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know for what reason Baier was appointed Director of that school? What I want to say is the following: Did he fulfil any special prerequisites for this task?
A. At the time I reported to Pohl and stated to him the necessity of a specialist who was intelligent and without any flaw at all in his character. Pohl told me at the time, "I believe that I have such a man. I shall try to have him transferred from the navy." That is exactly what happened.
Q. That man was Baier?
A. Yes.
Q. In the year 1937 did this school have the designation which I have just mentioned, or just what was its name?
A. It was called the Administrative School. It was called the SS Administrative School. I don't know whether it had another title at that time. In 1942 it was the SS Leaders School.
It was you who told me that the school at that time was called Training Center for Administration?
A Yes, that is quite possible. After all its extent was very small.
Q You just called yourself the inspector of that school or this training center. Did you ever inspect this school or this training center?
A Yes, I inspected it at the beginning and at the end.
Q And to what did these inspections extend?
A I believe it would go too far here to explain that. Very briefly, about the quality of the students, about the quality of the lectures and the subjects that were given by Baier, and about the maintenance of the goal that I had set.
Q That is sufficient for me. And what was this goal?
A Our aim was to train an administrative officer who would meet the requirements of the troops.
Q Where were these men sent to after they had been trained?
A. They were sent to the troop units.
Q They were sent to the special duty squads?
A Yes.
Q Can you still remember how many main office teachers were employed at that school?
A What are you referring to?
Q I am referring to the time before the war.
A. In my opinion Baier was the only teacher before the war.
Q In the year 1943 Baier was transferred to the WVHA. Did you have anything to do with his transfer?
A I had nothing to do with the transfer, but I had something to do with his replacement.
Q Can you tell us any more details on this subject, very briefly?
AAt the time Baier had to be transferred from the school, and this was done for military reasons, since the totality of the war became more increased and this required that the administrative officers who were used at the front should be trained by a man who also had gained some experience at the front.
However, Baier did not have this experience, and experience which he had gathered during the First World War had already been surpassed. What I have said is confirmed by the fact when I state that the successor of Baier had been decorated with the Knight's Cross, the so-called "Ritterkreuz". Therefore he had a high decoration from combat service, and at the same time through the training which he had received he met the requirements to the fullest extent which at that time he had to have to be a director of the school.
Q What was actually taught at that school, Witness?
A Everything was taught which we considered and which we expected of an administrative officer in the Waffen-SS, and that was a lot.
Q I would be very grateful to you if you would only state some of the subjects that were taught there to the Tribunal, so that we will get an idea exactly what was taught there?
A The administrative officers of the Waffen-SS had to learn various subjects there. They had to be able to improvise. They had to be honest, and they had to know to one hundred percent the knowledge that was required of an administrative officer. I can describe this activity very briefly by stating that there were twenty-five different regulations which had to be complied with, and they had to learn those.
Q Witness, please don't blame me for asking a question. Was any language, was any training given in languages, or was any training given in payment, or with regard to the procurement of food? That is what I would like you to tell me. Tell me just one point.
A Yes, everybody had to learn at least one language, English. It was mandatory to learn English, and if an officer did not learn English, or already knew it before, then he had to learn a second language. That is to say , if he did not want to learn English, or if he was not very suitable for learning that language, he had to take up another language.
He had to have exact information about the food. That is to say, he was taught about meat, for example, if it was good meat or bad meat. Then he had to learn how to differentiate. He had to learn how to store potatoes so they would not spoil.
He had to learn everything about the treatment of vegetables, and he had to learn how grain was stored, etc. Then he had to know everything about all the fields with which any officer had to deal with who had to clothe a man and who has to feed him, and that under the most difficult circumstances.
Q And then, in order to shorten the matter, I can state he had to supply the man?
A Of course, naturally. He had to pay the soldiers. He had to take care of the allotment of a soldier for his family. He had to know what civilian employees were to be paid. As I say, there were twentyfive regulations he had to know by heart.
Q If I can sum up this matter, therefore this was an administrative, technical training?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Witness, do you know if this transfer of Baier was carried out with his agreement, or did any difficulties arise on this matter?
A No, he certainly did not agree to this fact. He was very depressed about it. I could understand that, because it is a very beautiful task to lead people. It is much more beautiful than to work on files.
Q And Baier was then transferred to the WVHA. Did you still have official contact with him at that time?
AAs far as I can recall only on one occasion. That was when he came to see me and when he wanted to sign the agreement about the thirty million.
Q Can you briefly describe this loan of thirty million to us, and can you specify about it?
A Can I perhaps do it this way? This was the Reich loan to the DWB.
Q It was in the amount of thirty million, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Where did this money come from, Witness?
A Well, this was money which belonged to the Reich, yes.
Q I now refer to Document Book 14 on page 52 of the German text; it is Exhibit No. 391. It is the note which Baier, when he started actively in the WVHA found was waiting for him, and under paragraph 17 of this note the following is stated, and I quote. "The agreement between the Reich and the DWB with regard to the loan from the Reinhardt Fund has to be fixed yet in writing." In direct examination and also in the crossexamination you have already made several statements about this Reinhardt Fund. Now, I am only interested on the subject of one particular question. What was the activity of Baier in fulfilling this point, and to what extent did you deal with this matter together with Baier?
A I can recall that Baier came to see me at the time. He told me then, "Gruppenfuehrer, the agreement about the thirty million has already been fixed, but it has not as yet been signed and ratified. I have found a note here by Hohberg according to which this agreement has as yet to be signed." He already had this agreement with him. He asked me just what it meant, what had happened, why the words "Reinhardt Fund" had been used in this note? I told him then that this already had been surpassed, and this was only a question of the first two back payments, that, however, there was no reason at all to use the words "Reinhardt Fund" in the agreement or to use the words "Action Reinhardt" at all in the agreement. In the agreement which was signed by me in this conversation the word "Reinhardt" was not mentioned at all. I assume that the Prosecution has this document in their hands and that this can be checked. I signed this agreement on behalf of the Reich. Pohl signed it for the economy. That is what brought it about.
Q When did this happen, Witness?
A That must have happened during the first days of September.
Q That was 1943?
A Yes.
Q Now, did you give Baier any explanation for the word "Reinhardt"? I understood you to say, Witness, that Baier apparently asked you, "What does that word 'Reinhardt' mean?" because he had this word for the first time here, and he had only come into the WVHA a short time before, and apparently you changed the subject, if I understood you correctly, you practically said it was without any importance.
A Well, I can repeat to you what I said to him that day and in any case I told him that the agreement should not contain this word and there was not any reason to have this word in there. I don't think that I gave him any explanation about it.
Q Witness, your relationship was somewhat strained at the time, if I am correctly informed?
A Yes, Baier was angry with me because I had him transferred from the school.
Q You were Gruppenfuehrer?
A Yes, we would not come together any more than was necessary.
Q That was what I wanted to know. Apparently he did not engage in any lengthy discussion about this contract?
A Well, we did have a somewhat strained relationship at the time.
Q Well, this agreement has not been submitted so far. Could Baier from this agreement obtain any knowledge about the so-called Reinhardt program?
A No, there was not even a word mentioned about the Reinhardt Action in there.
Q Now, another question, Witness. Do you know whether Baier, outside of his acquaintance with the Defendant Pohl, since the time he served in the navy, ever had any closer contact with other collaborators in the WVHA or if he had any other obligations towards them?
A. Not as far as I know.
Can you tell me what the attitude of Baier was in the WVHA, can you tell me anything about his relationship to the other workers there?
AAre you referring to the time when he was in the WVHA, or are you still referring to the school?
Q I am still referring to the time he was in the WVHA.
A I can not tell you that because when Baier came I left the place. I was unable to make any close observation.
Q I want to refer once more to another question. You previously mentioned the fact that you also played a part in having Baier transferred from the school. Did you also play a part in having Baier transferred to the WVHA?
A No, to the contrary. I even believed that Baier would be sent to the units because of his experience which he had as far as the administration at home was concerned. However, I don't know just why he was transferred to the economy. Perhaps it was because Hohberg had left just about that period of time.
Q Did he have any practical experience in order to fulfill the task?
A I believe that Baier had studied economy before.
DR. FRITSCH: Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Recess until 1:45.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess until 1:45.
(A recess was taken until 13:45 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 9 June 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. HOFFMAN: May it please the Court, I have a question concerning procedure. When the document book was put together, it became clear that I wished to submit a number of legal points which I have taken from a volume of collected laws which is part of the library here. I am unable to submit these in the original because I must return them to the library. Would it be sufficient for the Court and the Prosecution if I were to have the correctness of the text certified, or am I to have the certification done by the liaison officer in charge of the Defense Information Center?
THE PRESIDENT: What books are they, Dr. Hoffman?
DR. HOFFMAN: They are a collection of laws and decrees consisting of German legal Gazettes. From these legal Gazettes I wish to take certain decrees, and I have to return the original Gazettes. I am not allowed to leave them with the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Could you not make a written copy of the parts that you wish to use?
DR. HOFFMAN: Yes, that is what I want to do, but can I certify the correctness of the text, or should that be done by an officer?
THE PRESIDENT: I am sure we would be satisfied with your certificate that they were true copies.
DR. HOFFMAN: Thank you.
BY DR. GAWLIK: (for the defendant Dr. Bobermin)
Q: Witness, what were the tasks of IV-A in a military staff?
A: IV-A Military Staff was the consultant of the commanding officer in all economic matters of the troops.
Q: Is it correct, then, that IV-A was the administrative officer?
A: Yes.
Q: Will you please give the Tribunal examples of the tasks of IV-A.
A: Let me state the example of a higher administrative officer. For instance it would be best if I used the so-called general command, as an example. The commander in chief of the general command was a general. In order to assist him in economic matters, he had under him an administrative general. That administrative general had two channels at his disposal. One channel of command ended with his commanding officer, with the commanding officer in charge. In that sense, he was his economic advisor. The other channel ended with the chief of the army administrative office; that was a purely technical channel. And that example can be applied to all other examples.
Q: Witness, please tell the court what he did in detail. Can you give us detailed examples of what he had to take care of and what his tasks were?
A: For instance, a complaint would reach the general that the troops had insufficient food.
Q: So he had to deal with food, and what else?
A: Clothes.
Q: And what else?
A: He had to see to it that the troops got their pay. He had to see to it that the men were properly billeted, and so on.
Q: I shall submit to you Document NO-1015, which is in Document Book XVI on Page 92. Here reference is made to IV-A with the higher SS and police leader, in the district of Lublin and I should like to ask you did IV-A with the SS and police leader in Lublin have the same tasks which you described just now?
(Witness is given the Document Book).
A: No. Globocnik was not a commanding officer in the sense of a commanding officer.
Q: What did this IV-A have to do?
A: His task there was of a purely administrative nature.
Q: What tasks were they?
A: The troops in Lublin and around Lublin had to be paid by him. He was not concerned with their food, however. He had to see to it that they had billets. That I think was his main task.
Q: You said that IV-A had to see to it about wages and billets.
A: He was not a IV-A. You can only be a IV-A if you have a commanding officer above you.
Q: But it says IV-A here.
A: I don't know why it does. He was not a IV-A with the SS and police leader. This was written by someone who did not have expert knowledge.
Q: What was he?
A: He was in charge of the garrison administration.
Q: Was his task similar to IV-A?
A: No. I object to that. It was not like that! We are concerned here with Sturmbannfuehrer Wippern in Lublin. He was in charge with the garrison administration, and what he had to do as such, I have described just now. His relationship with Globocnik was based on a special order which had nothing to do with military assignments.
Q: But it is correct to say that he had to look after pay and billeting?
A: Pay and billeting, yes, that is correct.
Q: And is it also correct to say that a IV-A in the military staff had also to look after wages and billets? +
A: Yes.
Q: Therefore, the activities of this man were the same as that of IV-A with the military agency? Please answer my question "Yes" or "No."
A: No. A IV-A must have a commanding officer above him, otherwise he is not a IV-A only an administrative officer. They are two distinct things.
Q: It doesn't matter what the man is called surely. You said this man had to look after pay and billeting, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Then you said IV-A with a military agency also had to look after pay and billeting, is that correct?
A: Melmer in his sphere as an administrative officer in the garrison had the same task as any other administrative officer at home and in occupied territory.
Q: Witness, will you please answer my question. You said a IV-A with a military agency also looked after billets and wages, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Thank you very much. There are no further questions on that point. What do you know about credits granted by supply firms to military agencies? Was that a usual thing to happen that supply firms would grant credits to branches of the Armed Forces, or rather that the Armed Forces granted a credit to these supply firms?
A: As the war intensified, yes, it became necessary, because the supply firms did not always have such capital to find the money themselves for the orders.
Q: What can you tell us about the terms, how these credits came about?
A: One might say briefly that there were two manners in which a credit would be granted; either the firm concerned from the beginning received a certain sum for which it had to give security and on which it had to pay interest and which were calculated into the deliveries. These credits, in other words, were always approximately the same amount as the deliveries. The other manner was that each order individually was paid in advance by a certain sum as opposed to a general payment in advance.
Q: What do you know about the terms attached to this?
A: The terms depended upon what sort of a firm it was. In war time, most firms were semi-nationalized or at least subsidized by the State. Of these firms, the securities demands were very small, but if they were purely private firms, the firm either had to give a banker's reference or a building as security. Interest had to be paid in every case and the contract had to express when the money had to be paid back.
Q: Thank you very much. No further questions.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q: Were war bonds issued by the Reich and sold to the German people during the war?
A: Yes, to a very large amount actually, the so-called war treasury bills.
Q: Those were bonds by which the Reich borrowed money from the German citizens?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know the amount that was issued? The total amount?
A: No, I don't.
Q: You don't know how many billion Reich marks were borrowed?
A: All I heard was that the Reich debts towards the end amounted to about 55 to 60 billions. But that is only private knowledge on my part.
Q: And did the Reich pay interest to the German people for that money?
A: Yes, there were treasury bills of 4-½ per cent, 4 per cent, and 3-½ per cent.
BY DR. BERGOLD (for the defendant Klein).
Q: Witness, can you remember that in December 1943, the defendant Klein paid a visit to you and can you tell us why he called on you?
A: I was then with the police when Klein called on me one day in the office and asked me to listen to him. I could not think what he wanted because I had no official relations whatever with Klein.
Q: What was the impression he made on you?
A: He seemed to be in a desperate frame of mind which I noticed and I asked him why he was so excited, and he told me that his sister -- I believe she was called Frau von Ruppert -- and her husband had been arrested by the Secret State Police and they had to expect to be tried for high treason before a People's Court.
Q: Now did he request you to do something?
A: Yes. He asked me to help his sister and her husband.
Q: Were you not slightly surprised that he didn't turn to Pohl and didn't you ask him why he didn't go to the defendant Pohl first?
A: Yes. I asked him that and he told me that he didn't have the courage to go to Pohl with a thing like that.
Q: What did you do thereupon?
A: Well, I told him there wasn't very much I could do. If I could do anything at all, I could go to Gruppenfuehrer Mueller, who was the chief of the Gestapo, but I immediately told him that I had no contact with Mueller and that therefore I was unable to say that I could do anything about it.
Q: Did you do that? Did you go and see Meuller, and what was the result?
A: I took the time. I went to Mueller and saw him. Mueller was very reserved and told me that it was a very serious case which concerned the Ruppert family, and that there was little that he could do; especially, the brother-in-law, who was an active officer, there was absolutely nothing he could do because he would face a sentence by the Wehrmacht.
I would like to say briefly that Major von Ruppert committed suicide before he appeared before the People's Court, which Klein told me shortly afterward.
Q. Did you do anything for the sister of Klein?
A. Yes, after a great deal of trouble Mueller was somewhat highhanded and very reserved, as I mentioned before. He promised me that he could do something for the sister.
Q. And did you hear anything that happened?
A. Klein wrote me a letter thanking me that his sister need not appear before a People's Court and was sentenced to a concentration camp.
Q. Was that the end of the business?
A. On the whole, yes. Mueller phoned me one day, was extremely furious because he alleged that Klein had somehow got access to the files by misrepresentation, and he threatened to get Klein involved in this because he said Klein had such intimate contact with his sister that it was entirely possible for Klein himself to be involved in the charge of defeatism. Perhaps it is interesting here in this connection that I told Mueller while Klein is a member of the Allgemeine SS he is an officer in the Allgemeine SS. Whereupon Mueller told me to my surprise, "I couldn't care less. As Chief of the Gestapo I'm not interested; couldn't care less." That is why I remember that.
I asked him again and told him that Ruppert's wife be treated decently in the concentration camp, which he promised me, and I heard nothing further.
Q. Did you hear anything about the famous family responsibility with reference to Klein?
A. Yes, I did indeed. Mueller threatened Klein, threatened to report all this to the Reichsfuehrer SS, and on the basis of the law of family responsibility in the SS Klein might well be involved in the trial and sentenced.
Q. To speak quite generally, was it your impression that Mueller could make independent decisions in this matter? Or whether he had to consult Himmler about this?
A. In this case of Klein he told me he could not make independent decisions because, first of all, Klein was a member of the SS and he, therefore, had to go right to the Reichsfuehrer - whether he wanted to or not. And, secondly, because Frau von Ruppert's husband had been an active officer, for which reason a report had to reach the Reichsfuehrer SS.
Q. When was the second conversation you had with Mueller?
A. That was much later.
Q. Was it in January 1944, perhaps?
A. Yes, I think it might. I told Mueller if he couldn't do anything I myself would go and see the Reichsfuehrer SS, and that impressed him apparently. And he really did something.
Q. Did you hear anything about the fact that Frau von Ruppert was liberated by the Allied armies in the concentration camp?
A. I never saw Klein after that, but he told me in person here that his sister was well and happy and had been liberated by the Allied troops.
DR. BERGOLD: Thank you.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: What had she been charged with, Dr. Bergold? What had Klein's sister been charged with?
DR. BERGOLD: She was accused of having made defeatist remarks about the armed forces - which meant treason. She was against the Party.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: And was it suggested that perhaps the defendant may have made similar remarks?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, this witness said so just now.
WITNESS: Yes, quite.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Defendant, before Mr. Robbins starts, it isn't quite clear to us why you left the WVHA. That was in 1943?
A. In June of 1943 the Chief of Staff of the Regular Police phoned me and asked if I would like to replace the administrative director of the Regular Police.
For the reason which I mentioned before, I immediately said yes, although I did not improve my position thereby. On the contrary, from an Office Group chief I merely became an Office chief, and also I had to wear a police uniform which was not as highly esteemed as that of the Waffen SS.
Q. Well, without saying too much about it, tell us again your reasons for wanting to make the change.
A. There are two reasons, Mr. President. One was as I said that the WVHA and particularly in my presence the Reichsfuehrer had forced us to look after properties which had been taken from people without compensation. That, it seemed to me, was against our principles. And the second reason was, Mr. President, that the atmosphere as such, when Office Group D was joined to us, that is, all the concentration camps, I disliked, because I had to say I, as deputy of Pohl, could not remain untouched by these things. I reserved myself, and I retired as much as I could - which can be seen from the documents. That is, as far as concentration camp matters were concerned, I did not appear on the stage at all.
Q. And you never went back to the WVHA after that?
A. No, Mr. President.
Q. You stayed with the police until the end of the war?
A. Mr. President, from the first of October 1944 I was in two positions. I remained administrative chief with the police, and simultaneously I became chief of the administrative office of the army, so that I had a twin task to look after from the autumn of 1944 onwards.
Q. I remember your testifying about that. And you had no further connection with Amtsgruppe D after you left the WVHA?
A. No, I had nothing to do with it at all.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness, what was the exact date on which you withdrew from the WVHA?
A. On 1 September 1943. I was introduced to my office as Police Administrative Chief in a place called Unter den Linden.
Q. After that date, 1st September 1943, the defendant Fanslau did not immediately become chief of Amtsgruppe A. Is it true that you continued until Fanslau assumed the duties of Amtsgruppe A to advise the members of Amtsgruppe A, and to carry out a part of the functions as chief of Amtsgruppe A?
A. I advised him, yes; on the basis of my experience of many years in military administration it is quite obvious that a man like myself could not burn his bridges from one day to the next. I knew the personnel intimately. I had known these men for years, and when promotions or transfers were concerned I always advised Fanslau. But I no longer exercised my actual office in the WVHA. I had, so to speak, no longer a desk in the WVHA. As I so testified before, Hans Loerner came and saw me a few times also in order to obtain advice from me in the financing of the Allgemeine SS after which I had looked for many years and in general budget questions for the troops. That was the very small function, really.
Q. And then until what date did you continue to exercise this function of advisor?
A. I believe I could not give you an exact date there; by and large I think the position was that slowly contact decreased until - especially as I was completely overworked in the police office - I had to lose contact altogether in the end. But I would like to emphasize that when I deputized for Pohl I discontinued that activity on the 1st of September 1943 because Georg Loerner was used for that after that date.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Let us get the approximate time if you can't get the exact time as when he did stop in the advisory capacity.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. That advisory capacity continued until Fanslau took over the job as chief of Amtsgruppe A, did it not?