Therefore, it was impossible for me to know that he dealt with such things.
Q. Do you think that it is really true that he did or that it is improbable?
A. No, if the evidence resulted in showing that he did, then it is probably correct.
Q. But you had no knowledge of it at that time?
A. No.
Q. Well, as an expert on Amtsgruppe A there seem to be a great many things you didn't know about. You tell us that you didn't know that the WVHA made personnel available to Globocnik. Is that just an assumption on your part, or do you know that from your own knowledge?
A. First I would like to correct one thing. I am not an expert on Amtsgruppe A. I only worked in the personnel section of Amtsgruppe A for a long period of time, and from my field of task I know quite a few connections. However, I do not know everything that occurred in Amtsgruppe A. I do know for sure that I myself -
Q. That is becoming increasingly clear. Just tell us, just answer my question about personnel with Globocnik
A. I know for sure that no leaders was transferred to Globocnik.
Q. You are absolutely certain of that; it is not just an assumption on your part; you know for a fact, from your own knowledge that WVHA made no one available to Globocnik?
A. I never transferred any loaders --
Q. I didn't ask you if you transferred. I asked you if you were sure that the WVHA had not transferred. Is it possible that someone else in the WVHA made the transfer without your knowing about it?
A. No, that is not possible.
Q. So you are saying that you are absolutely certain that there were no personnel made available?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. No, you have told us that you had no knowledge of what the men whom you transferred or assigned to the different amtsgruppen did after they were transferred to those amtsgruppen, is that correct?
A. I did not quite understand the question. Would you repeat it?
Q. You told us that your office made personnel available, administrative officers, for Amtsgruppe A and B and C, and other amtsgruppen, and you also said that your office received no knowledge whatever of their functions after they were so assigned, is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct; that is what I said.
Q I ask you if it was the function of your office to make recommendations or assignments, and to keep the records on these people. How was it that you could tell whether a given individual was a good administrator or a bad administrator? Didn't you receive any kind of reports in the WVHA on what kind of job these people were doing?
A The judgement did not exactly deal in particular with the special fields of tasks that the leader dealt with. It only spoke - or rather it described - a man's character. But that judgment never did contain any statement about the activity in particular.
Q Well, suppose you assigned an administrative official to Amtsgruppe C, as you told us about. Who would make the reports on this official to your office, and what kind of reports would they be?
A The reports were not sent at all.
Q Then your office, your personnel office on these men, were supposed to keep the records on them? You had no kind of evidence whatever as to the kind of job they were doing in the office they were assigned to. Is that right?
AAbout the type of work we had no knowledge.
Q And about the quality of work, what about that?
A No, as I said before, the judgment about personnel did not contain any information about the activity.
Q I must say this is a very interesting personnel office that your department ran in the WVHA. I don't believe you told us what position you held in Office A-5-2. What was your title there?
A I was an expert.
Q You were not chief of the office?
A No.
Q How often did you confer with the defendant Fanslau?
A Well, when Brigadefuehrer Fanslau was present, then I had a conference about every day.
Q How often did you confer with the defendant Pohl.
AApproximately once or twice, when Fanslau was not present.
Q Once or twice during the entire - during your entire career with the WVHA?
A Yes, indeed.
Q How many times did you confer with Gluecks?
A I never conferred with Gluecks.
Q You told us that all personnel concerning Amtsgruppe D were handled in a conference between Pohl and Gluecks. You don't know that from your own knowledge, do you?
A Yes, I do.
Q You were there?
A No, I was not.
Q How do you know it?
A Sturmbannfuehrer Harborn told me about it.
Q Can you tell us who was the chief of Office A-5-1? Who was in charge of that office.
A The personnel strength I do not know. All I know is that Sturmbannfuehrer Buesseln was in charge of Amt-4.
Q A-5-1; who was in charge of that office.
AA-5-4; I said D-4. I understood you to say D-4. A-5-1 was being directed by Vogt.
Q A-5-1; who was in charge of that.
A Oberfuehrer Loerner.
Q You can not be hearing my question
A I am terribly sorry; I must have misunderstood it now. A-5-1: it was Sturmbannfuehrer Buesseln who was in charge of that. A-5-1 was being dealt with by Sturmbannfuehrer Buesseln. A-5-2 was my field of tasks, and A-5-3 Sturmbannfuehrer Schaefer.
Q And can you tell us whether your office chief, Fanslau, had any contact at all with Office A-5-4?
A No.
Q You can't tell us? Or you had no contacts. What do you mean?
A I stated before that Fanslau had no contacts....
Q Are you sure about that, or is that just an assumption.
A I am even quite sure about it.
Q Well, you know, don't you, that Fanslau in this office designated the administrative officers for the concentration camps; Frank has told us about that. He surely knows more about it than you do. That constitutes one kind of contact, doesn't it?
A I have also stated before that the administrative officers, that is, the administrative officers were transferred to Amtsgruppe D. However, that has nothing to do with the contact of A-5-4.
Q Well, if this wag handled - Oh, well. Will you see if you can give us some conceivable explanation as to why this office A-5-4 was placed in the organizational chart under Fanslau, and under Frank, if it had no contact whatever with him?
A I have already testified that that designation was only used for the files, and that was clearly stated that that department was still under Amtsgruppe D.
Q That is the best explanation you can give. Is that right? That it was a file reference?
A Yes, and also the best proof.
Q When did you join the SS, witness.
A I joined the SS in February, 1932.
Q You were a member of the Waffen SS?
A On the 17th of May, 1933, I resigned from that position and I went to the Special Task Group, Leibstandarte at the time, and it was also part of the Waffen-SS.
Q You were also a member of the General SS?
A From '32 to '33.
Q What was the highest rank that you were given in the SS.
A In the General SS I was SS-man; in the Waffen-SS I was Sturmbannfuehrer.
Q You were a member of the NSDAP?
A Yes.
MR. ROBBINS: No further questions.
BY DR. VON STAKELBERG (Counsel for the defendant Fanslau):
Q Witness, I asked you a few questions because you were an expert in Amtsgruppe A. Can you tell me perhaps again and for sure, and give me the limits as to how far your expert knowledge went? This expert knowledge of yours did not only refer to your own fields of task?
A Yes; first of all on my own field of task, and then over the entire field of task of Amt A-5.
Q And also A-5, as you said; and did your expert knowledge also refer to the knowledge of certain organizational questions and files?
A Organizational questions? Yes. In any case because they were in close connection with the personnel transfer, and, as I know it, organizational questions I also know that keeping files was also necessary because I was attached to that myself. However, I do not know details from other fields of questions.
Q You don't know any more details about other fields of task in other offices. Are you an expert there?
A No.
Q In other words, we can not consider you an expert for the entire Amtsgruppe A, but only for those particular things that I mentioned before?
A Yes.
Q You stated before - I don't know if the question was quite clear to you or not. Did you know about the activity of the employees who had been transferred by you? Didn't you have any knowledge at all, or could you tell from an organizational chart what the outside frame was of the activities for those persons.
A Yes, of course I did know the outside frame.
Q Upon the question if you had any knowledge at all you said, No, you didn't have any knowledge. Was that a misunderstanding?
A Yes, that was a misunderstanding because the questions always referred to details and not to the general framework.
Q You wish to say that the outside framework was known to you?
A Yes, it was.
Q However, you didn't know any details about the fields of tasks?
A No, I didn't.
Q Then your own position doesn't seem quite clear to me. Within the Amtsgruppe you differentiate between various offices?
A Yes.
Q The offices are subordinated to the Amtsgruppe?
A Yes, correct.
Q Every office is sub-divided into departments? Or what?
A No, in various fields of tasks.
Q In other words the technical expression is Sachgebiete, fields?
A Yes, Hauptabteilung was used at first and Sachgebiete is being used now.
Q They were called Sachgebiete, and you were the chief of one of those Sachgebiete, or special fields?
A Yes.
Q In other words, you were not the chief of Office but you were the chief of your particular field?
A Yes.
Q And that was Office A-5?
A Yes.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Good, no further questions.
DR. SCHMIDT (Counsel for the defendant Josef Vogt):
Your Honor, I would like to refer to a certain mistake which occurred during the cross-examination between Prosecution and the witness. The Prosecution, while examining the witness about Exhibit 46 in Document Book No. 2, asked him if it was correct that the lecture of Fanslau about the SS at the time was put before Vogt- at least that is the way I understood it in the German translation. From the document, however, it can be seen that there is not the defendant Vogt, but rather V-o-l-k, Dr. Volk.
Maybe there is a mistake in hearing. I would appreciate it if the record contained the particular part of my statement.
BY DR. GAWLIK (Counsel for the defendant Dr. Volk):
Q Witness, I shall now show you this document, and I shall ask you can it be seen from this document that the defendant Dr. V-o-lk was not present at the time.
A. That can only be an absence for a short while.
Q. If it was an absence which lasted for a short while or not, it is in any case impossible that the Defendant Volk worked on that lecture?
A. Well, possibly Dr. Volk was not present, but I couldn't tell you that for sure.
Q. I t is possible then, or then it results from this document that it was not the defendant Dr. Volk, but only his representative that worked out this lecture without the knowledge of Volk?
A. That is possible.
DR. GAWLIK: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: How did it cone out? Who was there, neither Volk nor Vogt, but a representative of Volk, is that it?
MR. ROBBINS: That's right. Or, rather, I should say that is what the witness says.
RECROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Now, on redirect examination, witness, you said that you only know the outside frame of the activity of the offices other than A V. If that is true, then it is quite possible that Pohl sent personnel after Globocnik for Globocnki's assistance as Globocnik reported. Pohl could have done that without telling you about it or without conferring with you about it, could't he? He wouldn't have had to ask you about it, would he?
A. Well, formally, in order to execute the whole thing, it would have to be ordered by the personnel office. That is why I am sure that I know.
Q. Then why is it that you didn't know that Vogt was sent to Lublin?
A. There is a difference between a transfer and an official trip, which only lasts for a short time.
Q. Why is it that you didn't know that Melmer, who took a very considerable part in the activities out there, was not in Lublin?
A. Well, how an I to know? After all, I had nothing to do factually actually with Melmer.
Q. So it is quite possible, isn't it, that Pohl could have sent people to Lublin without your knowing about it?
A. That only for a short period of time. That is on an official trip. The transfers were to be carried out in a different manner, namely by order.
Q. You don't exclude the possibility that Pohl sent personnel for a short tine to Lublin to help Golbocnik?
A. No, if you are speaking about weeks, then there is such a possibility.
Q. It is also possible that Fanslau might have done that without you, knowing about it, speaking about weeks?
A. No, that is not possible.
MR. ROBBINS: That is all.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY DR. FRITSCH (Counsel for Baier):
Q. Witness, you told us before about the activity of A-V, and among other things you mentioned that the personnel policy of offices W were possibly administered by then, is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. You never did mention A V and you never did assign personnel to one of the offices W?
A. Yes, of course. I stated clearly that the personnel of the Amtsgruppe upon request or upon a request of the Amtsgruppe or of the offices or upon requests of Pohl, they were transferred to the offices.
Q. That applied to all Amtsgruppe in other words, also for W?
A Yes also for W.
Dr. FRITSCH: Thank you.
BY DR. STAKELBERG:
Q. In order to clarify that point, what you just said before with reference to this leading, you mean that power within the Antsgruppe, whatever was outside of that was no longer up to their guidance?
A. I shall be more concrete. Within the Amts.
Q. I see. You put at the disposal the Amt and the Amt then did the rest, and that was their affair?
A. Yes.
DR. STAKELBERG: Your Honor, I have no further questions then.
THE PRESIDENT: Does that conclude the examination of this witness? If so, the marshall may remove him from the court room.
DR. STAKELBERG: Well, if the Tribunal wants to call a recess, I would appreciate it very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I thought I might persuade you to ask for it.
DR STAKELBERG: All right, Your Honor,. I shall make the request right now.
THE PRESIDENT: Granted.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 11 June 1947 at 0930 hours)
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Oswald Pohl, et al, defendant, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 15 May 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Robert W. Toms, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal Two.
Military Tribunal Two is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Marshal, you will please ascertain if all of the defendants are present in the Court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the Court, except the defendant Bobermin, who is absent.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Bobermin is absent because of illness, and the trial will proceed in his absence.
DR. STAKELBERG: Dr. Stakelberg, for the defendant Heinz Karl Fanslau. I would like to call as the next witness of the defense the defendant Fanslau.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant will take the stand.
HEINZ KARL FANSLAU, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: Please raise your right hand and repeat after me: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath)
You may be seated, please.
BY DR. STAKELBERG:
Q. Will you please give us your full name and your birth date?
A. Heinz Karl Fanslau, born on 6 June 1909.
Q. Witness, I would like to speak with you immediately about the material points, namely when were you assigned to the WVHA?
A. On 1 February 1942.
q. What was the position you had there?
A. I became Chief of Amt-A-V of the Personnel Office.
Q. Did you ask for a transfer to the WVHA?
A. No.
Q. Was that transfer supplied to you?
A. Yes, absolutely.
Q. Did you apply for your transfer to the WVHA?
A. No.
Q. Was this transfer a surprise to you?
A. Yes, entirely.
Q. Did you know before your transfer to the WVHA, did you know of the intended formation of the WVHA?
A. No.
Q. Did you collaborate in connection with the creative work of establishing the WVHA?
A. No.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the witness please pause after the question until the translator has finished his translation before he answers.
BY DR. STAKELBERG:
Q. Were you amongst the leaders of the SS?
A. No.
Q. Will you describe that in a little more detail?
A. Unfortunately today I could not tell you what my position was in that respect. All I can tell you is that I was on the 500, or 550th position on the list; it could have been the 700th also, I am not quite sure.
Q. Did you have close contact with Himmler himself?
A. I saw Himmler for the last time when taking ever the zones after the Munich conference in October 1936. I was in the Sudeteland as administrator with the then divisional commander. I never spoke to Himmler myself, nor did he know me personally.
Q. When you entered the WVHA, were you told what the reasons were for your transfer?
A. Well, as far as I can recall the then Brigadeleader, and Major General Frank told me that he made that transfer for the reason, namely, that I could put my experience with the army, put it to use in army administration, particularly with reference to training and schooling of the army administrative officers, and the same applied to my experience in the practical setup of the supply units, both in personnel, as well as in the military respect, that is, the supply units for the division. The reason for that was because of my various proposals, that is, from the army units, with reference to training of officer cadets, that is, particularly, of the military training of the cadets, which on the basis of my experience as an administrative officer, or, rather with officer cadets, had not been sufficient taken into consideration at home.
Q. In other words, all the reasons about which you were told, and which you know, were purely of a military nature?
A. Yes.
Q. When you took ever your office were you assigned a definite political plan?
A. No, in no way.
Q. Did you realize later on, or did you know about it, that you through your activity in the WVHA would somehow participate in the political aim, or in the political plan?
A. No, it never was known to me, nor did I ever take care of a political task, nor was I expected to show political tendencies.
Q. When you entered the WVHA, were you told at the time what the reasons were for the establishment of WVHA, what the main reasons were?
A. Yes, I can recall one conference with the then Amtsgruppen Chief-A, which I can only give you according to its trend. The reason was that the organization was so complicated which would lead to a great many errors, I confirmed that at the time by saying that I, as an administrative official, found it very difficult to form a clear picture. First of all, there was the Main Office for Budget and Building economy, and, then again all through the administration offices under the Brigadefuehrer or Brigadeleader Frank, there were officers under our supervision out there, who could not possibly understand the organization, and I can really say that today.
Q. And you were of the opinion then that the organization could not be seen through was the reason for establishing of the WVHA?
A. Yes. Well, according to my opinion that was the thing that caused it, generally speaking.
Q When you entered the WVHA was there any talk about concentration camps -- that you were to take that over or that the WVHA was to take it over?
A No.
Q Labor assignment of inmates?
A No.
Q Extermination of the Jews?
A No, I knew nothing about it.
Q Well, what I mean is if they ever spoke about it as a means?
A No.
Q Medical experiments?
A No.
Q Euthanasia?
A No, I only heard about the euthanasia program towards the end of 1945 or early in 1946 for the first time.
Q About slave labor or exploitation of foreign nations?
A No.
Q From all the things which you are saying, I would like to deduce that there was no political basis at the bottom of the WVHA, a political plan.
A No, in Amtsgruppe A I saw only military tasks, also in B and in C - and Amtsgruppe W . As far as that goes, I didn't know it well, because there I noticed economic tasks carried out on a purely civilian basis just as in any other economic office and I considered that Amtsgruppe -- worked on civilian economic armament questions under Pohl.
Q You wish to say then that the tasks of the WVHA were not at all of a uniform nature?
A No, according to my opinion, the reason was for that the person of Pohl. That is, as far as Pohl was concerned I can see three particular tasks which I could recognize; the first one of those, the administrative sector of the Waffen-SS, similar to an army administration, possibility within the framework of a wehrkreis administrator; then, the task of party administration under Pohl, as far as you can call that a task in that sense.
THE PRESIDENT: Both counsel and witness are hurrying the translators. Will you please be a little more deliberate, a little slower, and pause between questions and answers.
Q And the third task? You had just stopped the second task.
A Well, the third task was economic orders and the tasks which I mentioned before.
Q When you entered the WVHA did you at the time regard that office as a State institution or did you look upon it as a political concept?
AAs I saw it from my sector, that is, the Waffen-SS, I conceived it all to be similar to an Army administration, I mean at the ministerial level -
Q What was the task assigned to you as Chief of A-V?
A The personnel administration for the administrative officers of the Waffen-SS in their entirety. The same applies to NCO's and military personnel of the administration office within the framework of the WVHA. I would like to add here, with the exception of Amtsgruppe D, which was added later on. As I mentioned before, the processing of the applications by the new generations of leaders and also recruiting amongst the soldiers, the factual training and schooling of the new generation of administrative officers; military training of these future administrative officers in cooperation with the operational Main Office and military schools.
Q How did you subdivide your office? What were the subdivisions?
A Well, I did not carry out the subdivision myself. The subdivision according to the chart which you have, already existed when I entered the WVHA on the 1st of February, 1942.
Q You wish to say when you entered the WVHA you were already shown an organizational chart?
A Yes, and may I point out at the same time that it was my impression yesterday also that when you were speaking about the chart, that this was not considered.
You always spoke about a chart dated March 1942. When I came to the WVHA that chart did not exist at all. It was correct as far as the Amtsgruppe and the offices were concerned. The only thing that was not contained in it was that particular field A-V-4, which we mentioned yesterday, nor was the entire Amtsgruppe D contained in that chart either.
Q If you are talking about a chart of February, 1942, well, then, Amtsgruppe D would not possibly be in it.
A Yes, I believe that yesterday it was not expressed very clearly that there was a different chart prior to that.
Q And according to that first chart, how was your office subdivided?
A We had A-V-1, which comprised replacements, listing and something else now that I can't recall. May I see the chart for a minute?
Q What category of people?
A Well, I want to tell you that there was no difference made by my predecessor. My predecessor probably participated in the setting up of this chart and I did not insert the change. I tried to point out
Q I would like to know now how you subdivided your office; in other words, at the time when you were Chief how the subdivision was. What did you do?
A May I repeat. According to the chart there are A -V-1, A-V-2, and A-V03. However, I changed the following in the Army administration there, A-V-1 comprised the administration of the NCO's and military personnel and also with preference to promotions, transfers and assignments, these were under A-V-2. Apart from that, the civilian employees, as far as typists were concerned, in other words, personnel who worked in offices of the Sector Waffen SS were also dealt with in A-V-1 and A-V-2. Again it was transferred from A-V-1 and it was also contained in A-V-2 and that for administrative officers. In other words, to make a long story short, I differentiated between the working or the personnel and the identification of the officers and NCO's the same way as it was done with every Army II-B and under A-V-2 I worked on the identification for the officers.
That is compared to Army administration II-A, as far as the field of task is concerned, training and schooling.
Q That is A-V-3, is it?
A Yes, A-V-3, I would like to mention that there was only one school. My predecessor wanted to create a school for administrative NCO's. However, that school never was established, at least not with the WVHA. That training actually took place with the Reserve Department, which was under the main operational office.
Q According to your subdivisions which you have described to us you had exclusively administrative tasks of the Waffen-SS?
A Yes.
Q What did you think the Waffen-SS was?
AAs long as I was a member of the Waffen-SS, that is to say, not only during the war, I was a division administrator before the war also, it was a purely military group, an army unit, and at all times all the administrative regulations for the Army were good for us. Those administrative regulations only dealt with military matters.
Q. According to the knowledge, or your knowledge at the time, did the Waffen-SS have any political tasks or was it a purely military unit with nothing but military tasks, according to your opinion?
A. Yes, it was-a purely military unit. We were subdivided in battalions, regiments, and we were housed in barracks, and our budget was in tune with the army budget. In other words, whatever the Wehrkreis administration of the army used, in budget matters, I also used in a budgetary way for the special Task Groups.
Q. I mean the ideal basis, did the Waffen-SS according to your knowledge , have a political aim, more ideological, or was it just pursuing military aims?
A. Just military aims.
Q. And your office A-V apparently was also an office with purely military tasks?
A. Yes, as I have already mentioned it in detail.
Q. When you came into Berlin, where were your offices, particularly compared with the offices of Pohl, when you came into the WVHA?
A. I went into the WVHA in February. The offices were placed in various buildings. I myself had my office in house number 129 Unter Den Eichen. Pohl's agency, for instance, and I believe Loerner's also, were two or three houses further down, and it was only in the fall of 1942 that the Amtsgruppe Chiefs, that is to say Pohl, for instance, moved to house number 132 or 133. However, that was one single block, one whole block, and we had connections through corridors among each other. That situation, however, only prevailed for a period of four to five months. Then when the air raids began we received two direct hits on that block, and all these houses in between fell of, so to say, that is from 131 to 134 all those were destroyed.