I saw that the hospital was separated into various parts for members of the SS and for inmates. Pohl spoke with the physician there and he conferred with one or two sick SS men and as far as I can really recall he spoke with one or two inmates who were sick.
Q. How was the general condition of the hospital?
A. Whereas in the billets, there were no sheets on the beds, there were bed sheets in the hospital, that is to say blankets; the whole hospital gave us the impression of being very clean. The beds had either one shelf or two shelves. I, myself, said we would have been very glad if we had such hospitals in the army, in Burma. The impression that we had was that the hospital was very clean. The lodgement barracks for the sleeping halls were surely not too crowded. However, I couldn't recall today if there was a special sort of living room and sleeping halls or if everything was combined together. I couldn't tell for sure today. Most of the people that were there were women. We went to a few labor barracks and the women were working on sewing machines there. I believe they had a few weaving chairs also and they did a lot of stitching work. They were working on some sort of Wehrmacht uniforms or uniform parts which were being manufactured there.
Q. What did the inmates look like? Did their look undernourished?
A. No, they looked absolutely normal.
Q. Did you notice anything about crimes or cruelties?
A. No, we only stayed in the camp for an hour or an hour and a half and then we had lunch there at the Kommandantur Building and after lunch we went back to Danzig and were back in Berlin in the evening.
Q. Did you ever visit any other concentration camp?
A. No, not from the inside. I was in Buchenwald once during the christening of a railroad, that was a public affair, some small local railroad track from Buchenwald to Weinnam was christened.
The Mayor and officials and workers and employees of both the State Railway and also from the private construction firms. There were also about 40 to 60 guests from Weimar. Civilian soldiers.
Q. You weren't in the concentration camp yourself?
A. No, I have a vague recollection, however I couldn't tell you for sure, if we saw any work or labor barracks there, where amunition shells were being processed. I think anti-air craft artillery shells. I can recall that. However, I couldn't tell for sure if I went through the barracks or not but I believe that I saw some shells lying around there.
Q. Did you at any time have knowledge of cruelties at the concentration camps?
A. Excuse me, I would like to mention a third concentration camp-Ravensbrueck-I know the concentration camp of Ravensbrueck.
Q. You knew about it?
A. Yes I did; I was never inside the camp.
Q. Did you ever know of cruelties in the concentration camps?
A. No; I heard about them after the capitulation, when I was still in freedom and I read it in the papers when my brother returned from American captivity and brought along American papers. According to my recollection they had written about Buchenwald. My brother asked me, "did you ever hear anything about those things? Do you know anything about them?" and I explained it to him that this was probably enemy propaganda because those things the way they were stated in the papers could not have possibly remained a secret because one must have had to know about them. I would like to add furthermore that I, although I heard about those things, and although we, the SS, were charged with concentration camps I myself went to the American PW camp after my brother returned. At the time of the capi tulation, I was about 70 or 80 kms.
from the place, where my family had been evacuated to.
BY JUDGE MUSMANNO:
Q. Before you get away from a statement you just made: You said that reading the accounts of these atrocities you came to the conclusion that one must have known about such things if they actually existed; that one could not help but know.
A. Yes, I assumed that.
Q. Now, must we gather from that remark that you are of the impression that the atrocities did not exist and that the stories were fabricated? Is that what you are endeavoring to say?
A. Yes, that is what I assumed at first. When I first heard about it from my brother I assumed that, yes, that they were exaggerated at least.
Q. And is that your opinion today?
A. No. I was from between 70 and 80 kms. from where my people had been evacuated during the capitulation and I walked over there because my aged mother, was with my wife and sister with three children they were refugees from the East. I wanted to see what had happened to my family because there were three women with seven children all by themselves, particularly since my sister's husband had been a prisoner of war in Russia. I would like to add further more that I appeared in a prisoner of war camp with all my papers and with my full uniform and that I gave all my personal data to the American Army at that time in the same way as today and all my official
BY DR. VON STAKELBERG:
Q. You wish to show by that, witness, that you had a clear conscience?
A. Yes, that also.
Q. Did you know anything about the medical experiments on which we have a whole series of documents?
A. No.
Q. And how about the euthanasia program?
A. I already stated before I heard about this term in 1945 and 1946.
Q. How about the expression 13/14?
A. I heard about it here in this Tribunal
Q. You will have to answer a bit slower please. Apparently you know something about slave labor or concentration camp labor assignment.
A. Yes.
Q. I shall give you again document No. 1016 in Document Book No. II, Page 122 of the German, the Exhibit No. is 46.
It is your correspondence concerning the tasks of the WVHA. There is a certain addition here by Amtsgruppe W, and it contains certain statements about labor assignment of concentration camp inmates.
A. May I speak about the whole correspondence, how the whole thing originated? Pohl sent me a letter which he had received from the Wehrmacht administration (today I can no longer recall if it came from the navy administration or the army administration) and the request was to send an officer who knew something about the SS organization, the supply of the Waffen-SS, and also who knew about the tasks of the WVHA with reference to supplying the Waffen SS. All three branches of the Wehrmacht, during an administrator's class lecture, should be given. Pohl gave me that order. I did not have any difficulty with army matters because I knew all about it. However, I could not write on the other matters, and I asked for some help. That is how this particular letter originated. I myself did not carry out the order. I did not work on the lecture, nor did I give it. It was the technical director of the school, and the deputy commander of our administrative school who worked on this before, and delivered it about eight weeks later according to the order.
Q. In this speech here labor assignment is discussed; concentration camp labor assignment. Did you see something irregular about that?
A. No; that inmates were being used, I knew. One could see it everywhere. If one was near factories, for instance, with Heinkel I saw that myself when I drove by with my car in Oranienburg. But if those were labor camps and if those people had just been transferred to the factories, and if they were being taken care of there, or if this was just carried out in the ten or fifteen concentration camps I knew of --- all those questions are things which I knew nothing of.
Q. As the purpose of this labor, it is stated in the speech that was mainly an educational purpose, is also stated in there, that it was being tried out to bring about a revolution of the execution of punishments insofar that through labor assignment people who were not accustomed to work, people who were afraid to work were reeducated to do work.
Do you believe that?
A. Yes, that could be deducted. Apart from that I could understand it very well that during the war many people committed offenses, and that these persons couldn't be fed without doing work, while the people were suffering and while, there was a lack of labor and while the whole situation was getting worse and worse from year to year with the increase of the hardships of war.
BY JUDGE MUSMANNO:
Q. Just a moment. Witness, I understood you to say that you at no time had anything to do with Amtsgruppe D. That is what you said this morning, is it not?
A. I was asked about a guidance of personnel and how it worked out, or then what I could find out through that personnel guidance, if I knew all the tasks within Amtsgruppe D.
Q. My impression was that you were clearing your skirts completely of any association of any kind with Amtsgruppe D.
A. No, Your Honor, I explained it very clearly that I carried out transfers, that I carried out transfers from the front line to home, to D. And I had also stated it in that connection. However, from those transfers, from those various tasks of the administrative officers, for instance, or of other members, I could not find out anything at all. And I was speaking about my guidance of personnel, and transfer of personnel.
BY DR. VON STAKELBERG:
Q. What, did you mean by the term "antisocial elements?"
A. By the term "antisocial elements" I understood such people who did not have a job, but rather carried out black-market activities without having a real profession, who enriched themselves. Or such people reported to the labor offices and received labor and then left their place of assignment after two or three days. Then, habitual alcoholics who spent most of their income on alcohol while their families starved.
Q. Did you also mean Jews by that, and members of the Eastern peoples?
A. By the term "antisocial" I only meant people in Germany who acted against the community of the people, that is, the construction work of the people.
Q. Did you know anything about the systematic spoiliation of the occupied countries?
A. No, nor did I work in any of the occupies territories.
Q. And what about the extermination program of Jews and its execution?
A. I only heard about the extermination of Jews through the HMain Trials or publications respectively.
Q. Did you have any knowledge of the so-called Reinhardt Action?
A. No; as I recall it, I heard the name Reinhardt Action for the first time when I was brought here to Nurnberg in October 1946. And that was when Pohl asked me, What are you doing here?" And I said, "I don't know."
After my return from the interrogation on 19 October Pohl told me -- I don't remember exactly what date it was, it was some days later-"You will probably be taken to the witness building. You are probably scheduled as a witness." And then he told me that he had been interrogated so-and-so many times, whereupon I asked him why. And he told me two or three things in connection with Amtsgruppe D, concentration camp matters. Then he spoke of a visit to the Reichsbank and of the Reinhardt Action. Then I asked him, "What is that?" He answered, "That is in connection with one of Globocnik's special tasks, and you can't possibly know about it." I also asked the same question to Vogt when he, in December, came back from an interrogation, and when he was transferred -
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, I don't see that these conversations among the defendants here in the Nurnberg jail are of any probative value, and I don't think it should be pursued further.
BY DR. VON STAKELBERG:
Q. Witness, that is sufficient about that point. Did you know anything about Vogt's auditing work with Globocnik?
A. No.
Q. Didn't he ever report to you?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever hear about this action through the correspondence in your capacity as the group chief?
A. No; it is possible that one of those letters was among the mail with the abbreviation "Reinh." for Reinhardt. That is quite possible. But as within the Amtsgruppe itself and not with my office. And furthermore if I really had seen such a letter, which however would be immaterial, then I am sure that I wouldn't have paid any attention to it, and I wouldn't have recalled it today. In any case, I had nothing to do with those things, and neither did I see anything nor did I hear anything about it. And I recall that for sure. And I am talking about foreign exchange and bills or coins, or then in some sort of a valuable metal, or then as I said in one of the documents, of gold or gold teeth. Regardless of what the quantities were, of one or two grams, or then of kilograms of gold teeth. Nor did I know anything about the eye glasses. I know that for sure, that I didn't know anything about them.
Q. Now, can you see from the documents that the particular field of task A-2-3 was participated in the Reinhardt Action; in your capacity as Amtsgruppe chief or deputy Amtsgruppe chief, didn't you find out anything about the Reinhardt Action then?
A. I don't know. I don't even know what you mean by that.
Q. I don't mean any particular incident.
A. No, I can't recall anything. I had nothing to do with A II 3 anyway.
Q. A II 3 had already been eliminated by then?
A. Yes.
Q. The prosecution introduced here Document NO 3161, Exhibit No. 543. It was introduced here by the prosecution. It is dated 4 July 1944 and bears the marginal note A II 3, Melmer, by order. Did you ever know anything about this letter?
A. No, I can't recall this letter, and I would like to add something to it. From the distribution list it can be seen that it was sent directly to A IV and to A I. That, according to my opinion, proves that the Main Office chief and possibly also the expert did not yet take into consideration the Office Group A on the basis of what was hitherto customary. However, I would like to add that at that time already I was chief of Amtsgruppe and the Chief A IV and the Chief A I were under my orders.
Q. Witness, the fact that the file note A II 3 is still being used here, doesn't that show that the particular task of A II 3 had not yet been taken away from A III?
A. Towards the outside, yes. However, the thing was, and I can see it from this reference here, they are referring to some correspondence, namely, that Melmer, who apparently worked on this thing during all the time, used the same old file note.
Q. You think that only the file note was being used. However, this does not mean that it was incorporated in Amtsgruppe A.
A. No, I can't find any other explanation for it, because it did not belong to Amtsgruppe A. May I add something before you continue? Under paragraph 3, "Collective Camps of the SD", of the Security Service, I didn't know anything about that in July 1944. Nor can I imagine how an agency or treasury of the Waffen-SS could possibly get money from the collective camps of the SD.
Q. Witness, I have the Document NO 2672 here before me, Exhibit No. 36. It is this big chart. It is also on the wall here and it contains more details than here. It was introduced by the prosecution as a supplement to their basic statements. Take a look at Amt A-II here on the chart. As you can clearly see, also the field of Task A II 3 is contained under A I, office for fees. You say that fact was no longer correct since about March 1944?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Did you sign this chart with reference to A II?
A. Neither with reference to A II nor with reference to the office group at all. Only A V, and when doing so, I noticed a mistake which was made by the interrogator, namely, that the person had forgotten to bring that addition under A 5, 4. When I wanted to take a look at that, he said, Thank you, it is enough. And Frank already took care of the rest.
Q. In other words, you did not sign for A II at the same time?
A. No, I didn't see it actually.
Q. In other words, you say it is an actual mistake?
A. Yes, at least for that time, March/April 1944.
MR. ROBBINS: I don't understand in what respect the witness has testified that this chart is inaccurate. I would like to know for my own information.
BY DR. VON STAKELBERG:
Q. Witness, would you explain once again in how far is Amt A II erroneously stated on this chart, or rather tell us up to what time this set-up was valid.
A. The change which was carried out due to the simplification of administration is missing and the same change is missing over there on this chart with the chief of A II.
Q. You spoke of A II 3. Would you explain this again, what happened with A II 3 and how far this chart is erroneous in this?
A. On the basis of the simplification of the administration procedure, necessary on account of the personnel cuts, that field of task A II 3 was dissolved as a ministerial instance during March/April 1944. In other words, it was put as house treasury into the house administration. Therefore one of the administrative officers became free. This administrative officer was transferred to the front line duty. The proposal of this administrative simplification, according to my knowledge, was initiated by the at the time chief of Amt A I. He was working on the simplification of administrative procedures, and that not only within the WVHA, but also all order the Organization Todt.
Q. That office for fees was put into the office of the house commander?
A. Yes, that is correct. There was house administration, and all those things were together in one single administration.
Q. Witness, you saw the documents here in the books which deal with the Reinhardt action. Do you know any of those documents from before?
A. I can't recall one single, nor do I believe having seen one single one of them, however immaterial it may be.
Q. Did you know that Globocnik had set up an administration of his own, that is to say, Administration G?
A. No.
Q. Then you won't know, of course, or perhaps you can just tell me that no people had been transferred by you to there?
A. They couldn't have been transferred there because then we would have known something about the existence of that agency.
Q. From the documents can be seen that the chief of this Administration G was apparently Hauptsturmfuehrer Wippern, who was in charge of the garrison of Lublin.
A. All I know is that he was in charge of the garrison of Lublin.
Q. Had he been assigned to that duty by the WVHA?
A. Not at my time. He was already there when I arrived. That is before the first of February, 1942.
Q. If Globocnik then, in his report, states that the personnel for his Administration G had been transferred by the WVHA, then as far as Amt A V or Amtsgruppe A is concerned, the whole thing is wrong?
A. Yes, there must be a mistake on the part of Globocnik insofar that he didn't know the connections in the personnel assignments. And the personnel of garrison administration was regarded by him as personnel of the WVHA. However, I would like to add that the garrison administrations, that is to say, neither those of the Reich nor those of the occupied territories, were agencies subordinated to the WVHA. They were not part of the WVHA. Personnel and rank and file were transferred directly by the Operational Main Office. If I myself needed rank and file for the internal work of the WVHA, then I myself had to make a request for them with the Operational Main Office.
Q. Witness, did you know Globocnik personally?
A. No.
Q. I would like to show you now Document NO 2126, Book No. 11, Exhibit No. 298. It is an affidavit of Grimm, Phillip Grimm. He is speaking here about transfers in September, 1940. If I can recall correctly, the prosecution when mentioning this document pointed out that Amtsgruppe A was involved in these transfers for inmate labor. Could you tell us if this main department I V, which is mentioned here, was part of Amtsgruppe A or part of WVHA?
A I can't find it. Where is it?
Q Can't you find it? It's somewhere in there. It's on page 2 of the affidavit.
A First of all, let me say that in 1940 there was no WVHA.
Q In other words, this main department A-V was probably a department of one of the agencies that existed before, that is perhaps Budget and Construction?
A In my time, there was no transfer for labor assignment or any personnel guidance or transfer of personnel. For assignment within the Amtsgruppe D in the concentration camps as little as for any other sector which concerned office group D or agencies outside the administration.
Q Then I would like to show you another document, NO-2327.
A Excuse me. I would like to say something else. In this connection there were several mistakes and misunderstandings. When I was there sitting in the dock, I heard it at least ten times that there were mistakes and mixups of office A-III of the WVHA with III-A of the Main Office -- I believe, Economy and Administration. It was mixed up very often. Therefore I would appreciate it if you wouldn't forget the date. If it was before the first of February 1942, and it says something about A-III in the record then it is obviously always a mixup.
Q Thank you. Now I would like to show you another document. It's Document NO-2327, Document Book No. III, Exhibit No. 75, on page 121 of the German Document Book. This is an affidavit of Hermann Pister. On page 2 of his affidavit, he quotes something about you. He said he knew you since 1936 as chief of supply of the special train "Heinrich". Is that correct?
A I never was supply chief of the special train "Heinrich", apart from that, as far as I know, no special train "Heinrich" existed in 1936. He probably got me mixed up with someone else, because I was attached to the special train Heinrich when the five zones were taken over after the Munich agreement in October 1938 - I already stated that before myself - I was not a supply officer then, but I was working there as an administrator together with my commander.
Q He further states that he saw you in Berlin on conferences of the commandants. Did you ever participate in any commandant conferences?
A No.
Q And finally he says that when the connecting railroad track between Weimar and Buchenwald was established and during the christening, you were supposed to have been there as Pohl's deputy, is that correct?
A Nor at the christening at Buchenwald nor at any other time did I participate as Pohl's deputy. At no time was I Pohl's deputy, nor did I act in one single instance as his deputy. Furthermore, may I add something? This was possible, it was a matter which was to be dealt with by the chief of Amtsgruppe C, Kammler. At the time he was a general and I was a colonel. Therefore, I couldn't have been Pohl's deputy. Kammler was the chief of the Amtsgruppe at the time; not I.
Q Furthermore, you have been charged with membership in a criminal organization. When was it that you joined the SS?
A I joined the SS on the first of July 1931.
Q And when did you join the NSDAP?
AAlso on the first of July 1931.
Q What were the reasons which moved you to join the SS and the SA?
A Up to that time, I knew nothing about politics. That was at the time when I was unemployed. It was then for the first time that I contacted certain political agents at the labor office. Come of my older friends persuaded me in joining the SS. During conferences and gatherings, I listened to many statements there, and I agreed to the program, particularly with reference to procurement of labor, raising the middle classes to a higher level; furthermore, with reference to constructions and other things, reconstruction particularly. Finally, I saw in the NSDAP a movement of the people which kept on becoming bigger and bigger, and then as a matter of pure conviction, I joined it.
Q You said that at the time you weren't employed. Would you tell us in a few words your career up to that time?
A I was born on the 6 of July 1909 in Duehringshof, District Landsberg on the Warthe, as a son of the merchant Karl Fanslau. Up to the time when I became ten, I attended the public school there, and after that I attended the high school at Landsberg on the Warthe, up to the age of 16. Then I went to a private class for commerce for three months. And in 1925, in the summer of 1925 -
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel. We have his whole biography in an affidavit, you know. I suggest it may be curtailed and made more brief because we already know it.
THE WITNESS: Well, just a few more short sentences.
BY DR. VON STAKELBERG:
Q Well, that is enough, up to 1931. You already started with '25.
A Yes. I got a job in Stolp-Stolpmuende with the firm of Feldhuhn and Schneemann. Then the firm became bankrupt in 1931 and I became unemployed in the fall of 1931. I did not succeed in getting another job.
Q That is enough. Thank you. Did you know the Party program to its full extent when you joined the Party?
AAs I already stated, I was 22, and up to that particular moment I never was interested in political matters and I did not bother with details of the individual points of the program and even later on as I am not a speaker -- I am not a politician -- I never could discuss particular political points.
Q One of the points which was after all important was Point 4, which excluded the Jews from citizenship. Did you ever have any thoughts about that point?
A Yes. Well, we discussed the thing.
Q And did you in that connection also look at Point 5, which says that all persons who can not be citizens of the State were to live in Germany as guests and should be under the laws for foreigners?
A Well, we discussed both points. I can recall that I even spoke with friends who belonged to the Jewish race. We discussed the points several times even after '33 quite frankly.
Q The thought in other words that this Point 4 would mean an extermination of the Jews or aim at on extermination or lead to it never occurred to you?
A No, I couldn't possibly have such misgivings, I personally had another opinion on these points anyway. Originally, I didn't have the intention to mention this at all, which is not very easy for me, for it doesn't make a particularly good impression if I tell you today that I had Jewish relatives and friends and certain affidavits from Jews. That was the reason why I did not speak about it for the first few months, and I really didn't have the intention to mention this matter at all.
Q. What was your attitude towards the Jewish question?
A. With reference to the immigrations which occurred from 1914 and particularly after 1918 from the East, I was against those immigrations. However, Germans who were Jews and talking about friends which I mentioned when I was speaking about politics, those Jews who had participated in the first world war as volunteers, etc., etc., they had medals and decorations. I never did have the idea that these people ought to be hated or that they should be looked down on only because they were Jews, or destroyed. I didn't have such thoughts.
Q. You also have a brother-in-law or somebody who is a member of the Jewish race?
A. That is to say -
JUDGE MUSMANNO: What happened to him? You say you also had a brotherin-law who was Jewish?
WITNESS: No, my brother-in-law is not Jewish. My brother-in-law, however, was arrested by the Gestapo because there was a mixed marriage in his family. I was a witness at the ceremony in 1935 when I was an SS-Fuehrer.
Q. Will you tell us exactly who was a member of the Jewish race?
A. My brother-in-law's wife.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: What happened to her?
WITNESS: Nothing happened to her. However, my brother-in-law, in September or October, I believe in November 1944, he was arrested. I didn't want to mention it in connection with the SD camp. He was transferred to an SD camp. That was the first time that I heard that an SD camp existed. But he was persecuted since 1938.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Well, you say your brother-in-law was arrested by the SD? Is that what we understand?
WITNESS: Yes.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Why was he arrested? Because his wife was Jewish?
WITNESS: Because he was married to a Jewish woman.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: All right, and what happened to him?
WITNESS: He was sent to a camp in Zittau.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: When was this?
WITNESS: It was in October or November, 1942, I mean, 1944, excuse me.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: In 1944? And did you know about it at the time?
WITNESS: I was immediately informed of that.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Did you make any efforts to assist him in his troubles?
WITNESS: Yes, I did.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: What did you do?
WITNESS: First of all I inquired with my sister-in-law what had happened, whereupon she told me that the Police President had sent that order. She couldn't explain the whole thing and I called up the Police President in Regensgurg to find out what the matter was and who had ordered the arrest, whereupon he told me that he couldn't give me any information on the telephone, but that it came from the RSHA, that is, the Reich Security Main Office. As I knew nobody in the RSHA, the Reich Security Main Office, with the exception of the Chief of the Administrative Office, I asked him if I could see him. He agreed that he would come and see me within the next two or three days in the evening.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Let's see the result. You don't have to give us each step. What was the result. You interfered and what happened?
WITNESS: Thereupon I was told by the Chief of the Administrative Office that they couldn't make any exceptions in my case, that he received that particular order from Mueller. After I had found out where it had been handled. -
JUDGE MUSMANNO: What happened? Now please give us the conclusion. Did the man get out?
WITNESS: Thereupon I asked the Chief of the Administrative Office if he could not possibly see to it illegally that my brother-in-law be released, and if he couldn't use him as a driver in his home at Thuringia and he agreed that he would do that.
Thereupon in February, 1945, I went out to the camp and I wanted to see my brother-in-law. However, what he promised me did not actually come true. He didn't get him out. As I already stated before, I didn't know Himmler. I couldn't go to see Himmler. It was absolutely impossible.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Did your brother-in-law ever get out?
WITNESS: Yes, he did.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: When?
WITNESS: I believe in February.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Of 1945?
WITNESS: Yes.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Because of your intervention? Because of your intervention? Because of your help?
WITNESS: I was not able to find that out, if it was due to my intervention. However, due to the transfer of the front, we were also transferred. Our arrangements were -
JUDGE MUSMANNO: So that you personally became acquainted with the difficulties of the Jews and all those associated with the Jews?
WITNESS: Yes, I never did believe anything else, because my sisterin-law came to see me in October in Berlin. She wanted to get a divorce in order to liberate my brother-in-law. I strictly refused that and I said there was no reason why who should do such a thing and that in my opinion that was something that happened during the war, something that would go by, a condition that would not last very long and was only a sevurity measure.
THE PRESIDENT: Recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess for 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. VON STAKELBERG:
Q. Witness, your career in the SS you have already described to us in your affidavit; and therefore now I should only like to ask you, is it correct that you only worked in the administration?
A. Yes.
Q. First of all you worked in the administration of the General SS ever since 1938. From 1938 on you worked in the SS Special Duty Squad?
A. Yes.
Q. Later on at the outbreak of the war this was transferred to the Waffen SS?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. You never had anything at all to do with the Death Head Unit?
A. No.
Q. Then I have only the final question to ask you, Witness, about your interests and your life. Did you possess an interest in politics, or were you interested only in the military field?
A. I was interested only in my professional field of administration and particularly in the purely military administration.
Q. Then you never pursued any political aims?
A. No.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: For the time being I have no further questions.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO): Dr. Von Stakelberg, may I call your attention to that one document that you discussed with the defendant, NO-1016? It is not clear to me who prepared the lecture which is attached to Fanslau's letter.
DR. VON STAKELBERG:NO-1016?
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO): Yes. You remember, the one which had to do with the lecture.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Oh, yes, I remember.
BY DR. VON STAKELBERG:
Q. Witness, who compiled and who drafted the lecture which I have previously discussed with you and for which you needed a contribution from Amtsgruppe W and from Amtsgruppe D?