Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A No, it did not.
Q Now, after you had transferred these officers did you have any possibility still to influence them and direct them?
A No. Once they had been transferred the officer concerned was under the camp commandant or his superior officer, and therefore completely outside our influence.
Q How was the personnel directed by Office Group D?
A The Office Chief of D requested the officers they needed. We transferred them to the offices or agencies and there they were trained by the office chiefs or people in charge and sent to their offices.
Q As far as Office Group C was concerned, what type of personnel worked there?
A Office Group C had mainly skilled experts, civilian employees, and a certain number of former Luftwaffe members.
Q Who had sent these Luftwaffe members to Office Group C?
A That was done by Kammler by arrangement with the Luftwaffe. They had been transferred to the Waffen SS.
Q Did he negotiate direct, or through Office A V?
A In these matters he insisted on negotiating himself.
Later on he had a special authority from the Reichsfuehrer in order to get personnel from the troops if he needed it.
Q And how were these people transferred to Amtsgruppe C? How were they directed by Office A V?
A That was done in the same way as Office Group B. They were requested by the Office Chief or any other official, but we had even less influence there because all these people were definite experts.
Q If I understand you correctly, you had no influence on the activities of these administrative officials?
A No, we were not even able to judge how far their training had gone, because they were technical personnel.
Q What about Office Group W? What was the personnel situation there?
AAs far as that group was concerned, they were transferred to the various offices by orders of the office chief, and these officers then worked in the offices to which they were sent.
Q What types of personnel did office group W have?
A Office group W had a great many experts under it and a large number of civilian employees -- skilled personnel for special tasks.
Q Who worked on the officers' data and files?
A The leaders were, of course, controlled by us and transferred by us. Civilian personnel was not controlled by A-V, but probably by the various office themselves.
Q So if I have followed you correctly, Office A-V, as far as the other office groups were concerned, had no independent possibility to direct personnel. Did Office A-V have any independent possibilities to direct?
A Yes. The whole of the administrative personnel of office group A and the administrative officials of the units and agencies of the Waffen-SS down to Hauptsturmfuehrer, were transferred by the personnel office independently. From a major upwards, the main office chief reserved the right to make decisions.
Q From a staff officer upwards, did you say?
A Yes.
Q At this point, I would like to show you a document which is in Document Book 18. It is Exhibit 471. In the German on Page 106? and in the English -- I am afraid I haven't got the page.
THE PRESIDENT: May I interrupt just a moment, please? Mr. Robbins, the chart which is being used or has been used and which was shown to us in German? is that identical with Exhibit 36 which is attached to the basic information document, except that it's more complete, or is it elsewhere in the document?
MR. ROBBINS: It's almost identical, but not quite. It is identical with Document NO-111, which is in Document Book No. II.
THE PRESIDENT: We do have a copy of it in the document book?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: In Document Book II?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes. However, as I pointed out this morning, there is one point in which it is incomplete and that is the very point we are talking about. I will supply the Court with the translation.
BY DR. von STAKELBERG:
Q This is a personnel file of a Hauptsturmfuehrer. It says here, Dr. Max Horn. Will you please look at it? (Witness if offered the file.) Is that a personnel file of Office A-V?
A No.
Q What can you conclude from this, that such a file would be kept by a different office group?
A Well, each office group and even the offices kept personnel data on the people that worked in their offices, and that personnel file in this case -
Q It's on Page 106.
A It's probably been done by some W office.
Q Does that confirm your opinion that the personnel direction within office group W came from office group W itself?
A Yes, or by the office concerned.
Q In this case, not by office A-V?
A No, not by office A-V.
Q Did personnel management A-V transfer its knowledge, so to speak, about the departments and the people it looked after? What I mean by that is if administrative officials were transferred to other office groups and you still kept the personnel files, did you by that work obtain knowledge of the details of what these people.
A No, that was not the task of the personnel office but it was the task of the manager concerned.
Q Knowledge was not transmitted by that, was it?
A No.
Q Did you know anything about Action Reinhardt, as it was called?
A No.
Q When did you hear the work Reinhardt Action for the first time?
A I heard this term for the first time by Dr. Rausehenbach who asked me about it.
Q Did you know what the Action Reinhardt stood for?
A No.
Q Witness, please make a pause between my question and your answer, so that the interpreters can interpret.
Was it know to you that the former Gruppenfuehrer--Brigadefuehrer Globecnik was in Lublin where he had built up an administration of his own?
A No.
Q Administration G was unknown to you then?
A Yes, it was.
Q From the documents which we have received here, it becomes clear that Globocnik used the garrison administration of Lublin. Was the Lublin garrison under the WVHA?
A The garrison administration of Lublin was not under the WVHA, as all garrison administrations in occupied territories were under the administrative officials. The garrison administrations of the home country were under the SS main operational office. (Fuhrungs Haupt Amt)
Q Therefore you had nothing to do with the Lublin administration, did you?
A No.
Q Who was in charge of the Lublin administration?
A That was Sturmbannfuehrer Wippern.
Q Was he sent to Lublin by the WVHA?
A No. Wippern was there when the WVHA was organized.
Q You had no contact with Wippern then, did you?
A No.
Curt No. 2, Case 4
Q And who supplied the lower officers for these garrisons, in particular to Bublin?
A The lower grade officers were sent by the SS main operational office.
Q Did you know Globocnik personally?
A No.
Q Do you know whether defendant Fanslau, as your former chief, did he ever take part in what was known as the Commandant Meetings, the meetings of the concentration camp commandants?
A I know nothing about that, although I was always informed where the chief would be at any given time.
Q Witness, I have a question about Globocnik still. In some report, Globocnik made the statement that the personnel office administration G had been transferred from the WVHA. Is that a mistake on Globocnik's part?
A That is definitely a mistake because the WVHA, as far as I know, never sent anybody to Globocnik's agency. It would not have been competent for a transfer of that sort.
Q Globocnik probably thought that the garrison administration was under the WVHA?
A Yes.
Q Now I want to show you another document, which is in Document Book II, as Exhibit 46. It's on Page 122 of the German Document Book. It deals with a correspondence between SS Oberfuehrer Fanslau, as he was at the time, and other of office groups, about a report concerning the organization of the WVHA. Do you know anything about this report?
(Witness is offered the document)
A Yes, I know that report, and I believe I read through it briefly at one point. We are concerned here with a survey about the development of the SS administration, the experiences gathered therein, and the tasks of the WVHA. As far as I know, the lecture was given at the Military Academy quite publicly.
What happened after that, or as to any other lectures, would probably be impossible because of the military situation.
Q Was that a military secret?
A No, it was not a military secret at all. It was quite a public lecture.
Q In that lecture reference is made to the fact that inmates within office group W used to do work. Did the lecture show in any way that this labor allocation took place under inhumane conditions?
A No, work done by the inmates under normal conditions is also usual under normal penal administration. Then the lecture, therefore, did not show anything unusual.
Q The lecture also refers to the fact that the allocation of inmates had been done for educational reasons in order to bring asocial elements back into normal work. Was that a credible statement when you read it? Did you believe that purpose?
A Yes.
Q In Document Book 19 there is an order about the dissolution of the Kurland Organization, Exhibit 497 in the German Document Book, page 119. Do you know that order?
A Yes, I received that order myself.
Q Was it carried out?
A It was not carried out because meanwhile the pocket in Kurland had been formed and the personnel could not be mobilized.
Q Did you know Hauptsturmfuehrer Melmer?
A Yes.
Q What were his tasks in Office Group A?
A Hauptsturmfuehrer Melmer had the Treasury of Office Group A. By saving personnel the Obersturmfuehrer Dorsch was transferred, and Melmer was given his tasks, and he and his whole agency joined the staff of Pohl.
Q He left Office Group A, did he?
A Yes.
Q When did he leave Office Group A?
A That must have been roughly in May 1944.
Q Then I want to show you a decree of the 4th of July, 1944, which still shows Melmer's file note and the main file note is AII-3. You know all about keeping files, don't you?
A Yes.
Q Does it mean that Obersturmfuehrer Melmer after his resignation from Office Group A still used that file note without being actually a member of the office group and under the Chief of Office Group A; did he, as it were, take his file note with him?
A That I think must have been the case here, because an official change in the organizational plan was not carried out, which is the reason why Melmer took the file note with him.
Q Will you please read it carefully, AII-3?
AAII-3 and then Reinhardt.
Q Tell the Tribunal what document you are talking about at this point. Will you please look at the number in the top right hand corner?
ANO-543.
Q This was Exhibit NO-543. Melmer in July 1944 still used a file note of Office Group A and also a file note, R.A.D., an abbreviation for Reinhardt, obviously, but you confirm that at that time he no longer was in Office Group A, is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct and I know that for the reason that in March of 1944 I returned to the Personnel Office from the front following which Obersturmfuehrer Dorsch was transferred by me to the front. This is the reason why it is out of the question that Melmer in July should still be a member of Office Group A.
Q You tell me from your special expert knowledge that was quite feasible for him to take his file note with him?
A It is even understandable. Melmer up to that point kept the whole correspondence under that file note. Logically, the answers would come in with the file note on top. That would have entailed an official change in the organizational plan in order to inform outside agencies of the fact if Melmer suddenly used a different file note.
Q You did tell us that was a purely formal report, but actually Melmer was no longer in Office Group A and therefore not under the Office Croup Chief?
A That is quite correct.
Q From your activities, did you know anything about medical experiments on human beings?
A No.
Q About the euthanasia program?
A No.
Q Extermination of Jews?
A No.
Q The systematic looting of foreign property?
A No.
Q The allocation of labor of inmates I referred to before, did you know anything from your official activities about the fact that inmates worked under inhumane conditions?
A No.
Q As you worked under Fanslau for a long time, you should be in a position to have formed an impression of his character. I am interests ed particularly in -- Was Fanslau a man with political tendencies and interests or was he simply a soldier?
A The former Brigadefuehrer Fanslau as long as I knew him had only military tasks concerning troop administration and supply for troops. He was purely and exclusively a soldier, and all matters which were not part of his military tasks were beyond his sphere of interest. In the many conferences which I attended, including private conversations, Fanslau never once touched on a political problem, be it racial questions, ecclesiastical questions, or concentration camp matters. The reason why his interests were so limited can be explained from his character and his nature.
If Fanslau were given a task, he devoted his entire vitality and efficiency to the carrying out of this particular task. That in particular was the leader corps of the administrative service of the Waffen SS.
From that mentality, it can be explained why here Fanslau, even when he was Chief of Office Group, devoted most of his time to personnel problems. He had to talk about these problems daily and hourly, almost, and office chiefs from other spheres were unable to report to him for weeks at certain times. His main interest was connected with the training of the younger generation of leaders. He was extremely rigid in that respect. He made high demands, both in physical and mental respects. Ideologically speaking, he was a very tolerant person. That could be shown by the fact that his most intimate collaborator and adviser in all questions of the training of the younger generation of leaders was a man who was a reserve officer, who had never been a member of the General SS, but only after his transfer from the army to the SS police division came into the Waffen SS, and who up to the end was a religious man, a member of the Catholic Church.
Fanslau judged people by their character, and in particular he demanded, especially from administrative officials, an attitude which would be appropriate to a soldier and an officer.
Q Thank you very much.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: At this point I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: This is a very fortunate time for a recess then.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. SCHMIDT: Dr. Schmidt for the defendant Josef Vogt?
BY DR. SCHMIDT:
Q Witness, do you know the defendant Josef Vogt?
A Yes.
Q Do you know that Vogt was in charge of the auditing department, A-4, of the WVHA?
A Yes.
Q Can you tell us the personnel strength of that particular office at the beginning of the WVHA and later?
A I can only give you the highest personnel strength and the lowest personnel strength. That is, the highest personnel strength was in 1942 thirty-two to thirty-five leaders. How many sub-leaders there were, and how many civilian employees I can not tell you. The lowest personnel strength was during the simplication of the administrative department, that is to say, at the end of 1944, approximately four to five leaders, with the exception of Standartenfuehrer Vogt, V-O-G-T.
Q Do you know, witness, that Amt-D-IV in 1943 was transferred somewhere else, if so, where to?
A After heavy damage by air raids, Amt-A-IV was transferred to the region of Fuerstenberg, and a special spot or place had been selected for evacuation purposes.
Q Was Amt-A-IV the only Amt of the WVHA which carried out these evacuations?
A No, there were still the W-Amts, which were removed from the blocks in Unter Den Eichen, and transferred to other localities.
Q When did the evacuation of W-Amts take place?
A I no longer recall the exact date.
Q Witness, do you know if the Auditing Office A-IV, or rather do you know out of the Office A-IV of the Auditing Department several employees were transferred to the SS Economic Department, and if so, when was that?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A I can no longer tell you about the exact date.
Q Do you know anything about the fact they were transferred?
A That is quite possible, that the leaders as auditors were transferred to the Economic Enterprise.
Q You do not have any exact knowledge about that?
A No. Amts-A-IV had constantly changed its leaders, and that was carried out by simply drawing from the so-called reserve. However, these people were transferred to the Economic Enterprise, and they resigned from that position with the Amt.
DR. SCHMIDT: No further questions.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
BY DR. STEIN (Counsel for defendant Eirenschmalz):
Q Witness, you mentioned Amtsgruppe C.
A Yes.
Q Do you know Eirenschmalz?
A Yes.
Q Did Eirenschmalz, as Kammler's deputy, ever discuss personnel questions with you at any time?
A As a representative of Kammler on personnel questions, Standartenfuehrer Schleif was the only one who was competent.
Q I mean the time before Standartenfuehrer Schleif appeared as Kammler's representative. I mean during that time before that, and I am now speaking of the time from January 1943 to May 1943. Did you at that time ever discuss personnel questions with Eirenschmalz, and that again as a representative of Kammler? Did you ever have any other discussions with him?
A I can not recall such a thing. I do not believe that I would have forgotten all about it if such a thing had occurred, if I had a conference with Eirenschmalz.
Q Did you receive in your hands a document which bore Eirenschmalz's signature as Kammler's representative?
A No.
Q When Professor Schleif was Kammler's representative, were there conferences with you very often about personnel questions?
A Well-
Q How often did they occur--every week or once a month?
A I can not give you any exact dates. Certainly there were often conferences with him, but I can not give you any exact dates.
Q Do you know that it occurred very seldom that Kammler spoke to you about various things?
A Would you repeat the question please?
Q I would like to know if Kammler ever had a discussion with you about personnel questions, and I want you to give approximate Court No. II, Case No. 4.statements if it occurred once a month that Kammler had official conferences with you.
A Kammler never had any conferences with me personally, but only with Brigadefuehrer Fanslau. I was there a few times, and I witnessed some of these conferences. They occurred about two or three times, as a total.
Q Do you know if there was any correspondence between Kammler and your office?
A Yes.
Q Do you know anything about the relationship between Eirenschmalz and Kammler?
A No, not from my official activity. However, I can recall that on the occasion of a private gathering Oberfuehrer Eirenschmalz said bitter words about his chief and stressed the point that he simply could not get along with him.
Q It is also known that Eirenschmalz at that time did not want to join the WVHA due to that reason and that he wanted to be transferred to an army unit.
A It is possible, but I could not confirm that of my own knowledge.
BY DR. BELZER (Counsel for defendant Karl Sommer):
Q Witness, do you know the defendant Karl Sommer?
A Yes.
Q Can you tell us today when and for what reason you met the defendant Sommer?
A I saw Sommer a few times at the WVHA. On what occasion and on what date I could not tell you today. It might have been in the Kasino or in the mess, or it might have been in an official capacity. I don't know.
Q Do you know that in the WVHA there was a two or three day conference of the commanders which ended with a group dinner in the officers' mess?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A I know of one such private party. I recall that when the commanders arrived with their vehicles, they drove up to the mess. That is all I can recall.
Q You did not participate in those dinners?
A No DR. BELZER: No further questions.BY DR. HEIM: (For defendant Vogt):Q Do you know the defendant Dr. Vogt?
A I saw Dr. Vogt only one time. I can't tell you where.
Q During the direct examination you stated that the identify of the concentration camp inmates and of those in Amtsgruppe D were in the personnel section of Amtsgruppe D. Is that statement correct, and does it apply to dentists, physicians, and pharmacists who had been transferred to Amtsgruppe D?
A That is beyond my knowledge. I can not assert that, that those were actually kept there.
Q Nor can you tell me where the personnel files were kept?
A I imagine that it was in the Medical Inspectorate.
Q You mean the Medical Inspectorate of the Waffen SS?
A I am not quite sure.
BY DR. GAWLIK (For defendant Volk):
Q Witness, when was it that the defendant Dr. Volk reported for front line duty?
A Dr. Volk saw me towards the end of 1944 and informed me of the fact that he had just volunteered for a front line assignment, and he told me at the same time that his transfer would be somewhat delayed because he still had to take care of an assignment which he had started. The transfer, according to my knowledge, took place in February 1945.
Q Is it correct that the defendant Dr. Volk was transferred to front line duty?
A Yes.
DR. GAWLIK: Thank you; no further questions.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:Q Witness, I have only a few questions.
Did you continue in your employment with WVHA up until the end of the war?
A Yes, with one interruption, and that was from May 1943 until March 1944. During that time I was a divisional administrative official with an SS Division.
Q Toward the end of the war, did you assist the WVHA in evacuating its offices?
A I did not understand the question. You mean when the WVHA was decentralized? I didn't get that.
Q Near the end of the war the WVHA moved certain of its offices out of Berlin. You told about that on direct examination. I am asking you if you assisted in that evacuation.
A I stated only that part of the offices were transferred and that was due to the damage that was caused to the building on Unter den Eichen. I myself went on a trip South only with the personnel files. Otherwise, I had nothing to do with the evacuation.
Q Did you take any part in the last days of the war in the destruction of the files and documents of the WVHA and Amtsgruppe A?
A Upon orders of the Main Office Chief, the personnel files were to be destroyed before anybody else could find them, and I carried out that order, and that refers only to the personnel files.
Q You participated in the destruction of no other files?
A No.
Q No other correspondence, no other documents?
A. The regular correspondence of the personnel office only. That is from my department, had already been destroyed at Berlin, because we could not possibly carry all that material along with us.
Q. Do you know about the destruction of any otter correspondence or files?
A. Well, I assume that the other departments proceeded in the same way as I did in my department, namely, that they took along the most important files, and the less important files were destroyed at Berlin.
Q. Are You in custody now, Witness?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Now, you told us something about the lecture that was given by Fanslau, and you referred to Document Book No. 2, Document NO-1016, which is Prosecution's Exhibit 46. You said that this lecture was given by Fanslau?
A. No.
Q. Who was it given by?
A. According to my knowledge the speech was given by Obersturmbannfuehrer Karius.
Q. You recall, do you not, that the speech or the lecture material was sent to Fanslau?
A. Yes.
Q. And it was submitted to Fanslau for the Defendant Vogt according to the cover letter. Now, did Fanslau turn this material over to the parson who gave the lecture?
A Yes.
Q. And do you know whether the material then, the lecture, reflected Fanslau's views?
A. Fanslau could not have an independent picture in that Amtsgruppe, because he had to rely on the chiefs of that Amtsgruppe. If the Amtsgruppe considered that important, then he had to assume it also.
Q. You tell us Fanslau was most interested in training the younger generation of SS men. I ask you, in this lecture material that Fanslau turned over, is this the kind of training which he gave to this younger generation? In this material he says that Himmler, in his capacity as Chief of the German Police, was confronted with the task of solving problems, namely, to get a hold of all anti-social elements which no longer had a right to live within the National Socialist State, and to turn their working strength to the benefit of the whole nation. This was effected in the concentration-camp matters, or similar questions. I ask you, did this explain Fanslau's views, anti-social elements were to be turned over and were not to be given a right to live in a social state?
A. The anti-social elements that were locked up in camps and jails were absolutely normal and usual, and the question never was that they had no right to live.
Q. This letter was written in July, 1944. You know very well what Fanslau meant in using the term "anti-social elements" don't you? He was talking about criminals; he was talking about Jews and Poles who had committed no crime at all. You know that, don't you?
A. No, that was not known to me, nor was it to be assumed.
Q. If it was not known to you at that time, it is certainly known to you today, isn't it?
A. Yes, today I know it from the documents which the Amer icans have shown us, namely that other people also had been locked up in concentration camps, not only anti-social elements.
Q. Well, you know today, don't you, that was the term that was used to cover Jews and Poles that were referred to as anti-social elements?
You didn't know that at that time?
A. No.
Q. You know the Defendant Frank in the dock here?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. About how often did you confer with Frank while you were employed with the WVHA?
A. In the WVHA I had no conferences whatsoever with Mr. Frank. I was his collaborator for two years in the administrative office of the Waffen-SS, which, however, was dissolved when the WVHA was recreated.
Q. Buy you had no contact with Frank at all while he was Chief of Amtsgruppe A?
A. No.
Q. You know, do you not, that that he left his position as Chief of Amtsgruppe A in September, 1943?
A. I cannot confirm that correct date because at that time I was not in the WVHA. All I know is that I was transferred from the group to the WVHA. Frank took over the administration of police.
Q. I suggest, Witness, that you can give much briefer answers. You know, also, don't you, that around May 1944, that Fanslau was charged with the operation of Amtsgruppe A?
A. Fanslau, only when he was promoted to a Brigade Leader in November, 1944, became officially chief of A.
Q. You are claiming to be an expert on the organization of Amtsgruppe A in the WVHA, is that right?
A. Yes, I know the conditions there.
Q. Fanslau says in his affidavit, which is in evidence in this case, that it was in May or June, 1944, when he was charged with the operation of that office. Well, I ask you during the period from September '43 until Fanslau was actually designated chief of the office, did Fanslau continue to act as deputy chief, or just what position did he hold, was he acting chief of deputy chief, or what was his position?
A. Fanslau was Deputy Amtsgruppe Chief up to November, 1944, and thus he only represented the former amtsgruppe chief in certain things, that is certain things of a representative nature, and he only begun that activity as Amtsgruppe Chief as of November, 1944.
Q. During that period when there was no chief of the office, was it possible for Fanslau, as Deputy Chief, to give orders or instructions to the offices under him, A-I II, and so forth?
A. No.
Q. He could give them no instructions whatever, is that your position?
A. Yes, that is right.
Q. Now, you claim to be an expert on A. Perhaps you can tell us whether the Defendant Vogt of Amtsgruppe A-IV was charged with auditing the funds of Action Reinhardt in Lublin; do you know that he made a trip to Lublin for that purpose?
A. No.
Q. For your own information the proof on that is in the record, and Frank has given us the full details that he was sent to Lublin to do auditing work. Now, as an expert, perhaps you can tell us what Melmer in A-II had to do with Action Reinhardt; do you know that he was charged with the responsibility of carrying the valuables from the Action to the Reichsbank?
A. I have already stated before that up to this present moment, I didn't know anything about the Reinhardt Action.