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?
A. Obersturmbannfuehrer Karius. He was factually in charge of the administrative school.
EXAMINATION BY THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO):
Q. Did he submit this lecture to you?
A. Yes, he gave me knowledge of this lecture. I read its contents.
Q. What did you do with it then?
A. Well, I returned it to him, and then subsequently he gave the lecture.
Q. I see. You approved it and sent it back?
A. Yes, that is correct, your Honor.
Q. That's all, thank you.
A. I beg your pardon, your Honor. May I point out that this was a public lecture and this was not classified as secret at all; it was not classified as a secret matter when it was read either.
Q. Very well.
BY DR. SCHMIDT. (For the defendant Joseph Vogt):
Q. Witness, in your affidavit, which is located in Document Book 1, you have stated with regard to the defendant Joseph Vogt, and I quote, that "the office A IV had to deal with all the expenses by the Amtsgruppen C and W, and that they had to examine and make spot-checks in these cases, and that the Chief of Amtsgruppe B, that is Georg Loerner, submitted his accounts to Vogt in order to carry out a spot-check auditing and he had to furnish the files for that purpose."
Can your statement be understood to mean that Vogt had to spot-check the payments before the expenses were actually paid?
A. Before I can answer this question I must describe to you some other things as far as auditing was concerned, the Amtsgruppen did not have the whole treasury. You cannot understand it that way at all.
There was only one house treasury in the WVHA. By that I mean the treasury of the WVHA. I was also referring to the treasuries which were with the Main Economic Camps, for example, which carried out the procurement of food for the troops, and these treasuries belonged to the sphere of authority of the Chief of Amtsgruppe B; but he did pot have his own treasury in his Amtsgruppe. As far as the auditing is concerned, I believe that I have clarified the point that his auditing was not carried out before the expenses were paid but the bills and accounts were examined after the payments had already been made.
Q. Then I can understand your statement to mean that the bills of expenses which had already been paid were submitted to Vogt with the auditing of the bills in the WVHA or the treasury of some other agency about the cash payments that had already been made and Vogt had to carry out a subsequent auditing of these expenses?
A. Yes, that was the formal procedure. Well, I as an administrator can recall it as having been carried out that way. From my own knowledge in 1944 I can only say that this procedure wasn't followed anymore at that time.
Q. Did Vogt have any official right of supervision over the Chiefs of the Offices A and B or over other Chiefs of other Office Groups or did he have some sort of an administrative control over them in a financial respect?
A. No, I have already stated that the auditing was carried out subsequently, and if he drew some conclusions, then this was the same everywhere, and these were the complaints of a factual kind.
Q. Witness, you have already described to us in detail today just how the simplification of the administration was carried out during the war and how this limited the activity of the auditing office, A-IV. Did this also affect the personnel in the office? What I mean to say is, do you know anything about the fact that the office, toward the end of the war, finally had to discontinue all its activities?
A. Well, they were not discontinued. However, there was an order to that effect. I believe that this was in effect February.
Q. What year?
A. 1945. However, the closing out of that office took up some more time.
Q. And the dissolving of this office was therefore connected with the gradual paralysis of the activities of Office A-IV?
A. I can say that it was a result of the conditions caused by the war and because we were already approaching the end of the war. All this had to be audited.
Q. Therefore, in view of the necessities caused by the war, the activities of the Office A-IV were considered dispensable?
A. Yes, as a result of the military situation.
Q. Now, I have one brief question. From your activity as chief of the Personnel Office did it come to your knowledge that it was customary, in the case of transfers from a Reich agency to another agency, and in particular from a civilian agency to an administrative agency of the SS, to make retroactive promotions in order to increase the pay which was given in the agency and to assimilate it to the pay that was received in the old agency?
A. This was not a direct personnel matter, but an indirect personnel matter. This was necessary, and it was carried out by virtue of the Reich Wage Scale, which set the salary, according to which no official or employee of the Reich should receive less pay as a result of a transfer.
In this connection, from the military point of view, the person would receive his appropriate rating which corresponded in pay to the salary which had been paid to him previously.
Q. Now, I have only the following question: When did you make the acquaintance of Vogt, witness?
A. That must have been in the spring of 1938.
Q. On what occasion?
A. When I took over the budgetary system of the Special Duties Squad.
Q. In the course of your later activity did you ever make an official trip together with Vogt?
A. No.
Q. After you became Chief of Amtsgruppe A, did you ever consult Vogt in official discussions?
A. That may have happened on three or four occasions. We were dealing with the reduction of personnel in line with the simplification of the administration, and finally I saw him because of the dissolution of his office.
DR. SCHMIDT: I have no further questions.
BY DR. HAENSEL (For Georg Loerner):
Q. I want to refer to the affidavit by the defendant and witness Fanslau. It is in Document Book 1, page 37 of the German text. It was submitted by the prosecution. Now, I would like to ask the following in connection with the previous questions: We were discussing the treasury, and I understood you to say that you, Fanslau, as chief of Amtsgruppe A, had to furnish the funds which, for example, Amtsgruppe B required in order to make a purchase which it considered necessary.
A. There was no such thing at my time. Nothing was placed at the disposal of Amtsgruppe B by Amtsgruppe A. It was done in such a way that the treasury, which was in the office of the House Commander, paid all the debts that had accumulated automatically, whether this was for B or anybody else.
It (the treasury) had to pay all the debts which had accumulated. If we were talking about food from the outside, then the payment was made directly to the outside, but no allotments were made in a budgetary sense, and in 1944 this procedure was not followed anymore. This was stated quite clearly by the defendant Frank. The allotment of funds was discontinued completely.
Q. But in any case the money passed through your hands?
A. No, that is a mistake on your part. The money did not pass through my hands. The money went automatically from the competent army Main Treasury or from the Reichsbank directly to any Reich Treasury of the Waffen SS, to all Reich Treasuries.
Q. Excuse me, witness, we must try to clarify this matter to some extent. If Georg Loerner received his salary, who paid it?
A. Well, there was no order to that effect. There was a central payment agency, and his bank received his pay automatically every month. No special orders had to be issued to that effect. This applied to the whole military army.
Q. And to whom was this payment office subordinated?
A. The finance office as such was an outside agency which regulated the payments for all soldiers in the Waffen-SS from a central office. We paid the troops at home as well as in the field.
Q. And who was responsible for it?
A. The man in charge of these funds.
Q. And you were not responsible for it in any respect?
A Of course I was responsible for all matters pertaining to money and to Amtsgruppe A. If something had gone wrong there then I or the competent office chief would have to check up on it.
Q. Were you responsible at the top level?
A. Yes.
Q. What is the difference between being responsible and responsibility at the top level?
A. Either I am responsible or I am not responsible.
Q. That's a "golden word", yes. In your affidavit you stated that Georg Loerner was responsible from the top level for the procurement of food and clothing for inmates. Now I understood you to say that either a person is responsible or a person is not responsible, and I can see the point. Now, what brought you to say that he was responsible on the top level? Is this a mistake in writing perhaps, or what caused you to use this word?
A. If I was to clarify it here then I would have to tell you about the whole interrogation. I would have to tell about all the connections in the interrogation.
Q. Those words, "responsible on the top level," do they belong to your daily vocabulary, and do you always use such expressions? or how was it?
A. No. I want to describe it to you very briefly. The affidavit was given and it was submitted to me, and the following was stated in it. "Gruppenfuehrer Loerner was responsible for clothing and food for inmates," and then I said, "With regard to clothing, yes," and I really had knowledge of that.
"With respect to food I am not quite certain. I, on my part, cannot make a statement to that effect," and I expressly stated that I could not claim that under oath. In reply to this we discussed it, and the following discussion took place. I was asked: "A colleague would know what the other colleague was doing?" Then I replied, "Yes, on the whole, yes. Of course, I know what their tasks were according to the organizational chart." Well then, I would have to know how the food was turned over to the concentration camps. Then I replied, "Well, I only know that this was in the civilian sector with regard to the procurement." Who was responsible." Now comes the top level of responsibility. Who was responsible on the top level?" The again we had a discussion which went on for a while. Finally I Said, "I cannot say with certainty from my own knowledge." And the interrogator asked me, "Well, somebody must have negotiated on the top level. Every agency could not have negotiated about the procurement itself." Finally I was against that opinion, and I assumed this had been the top level.
Q. But, my dear Mr. Fanslau, I am not trying to attack you, I am only referring to the top level which has been mentioned here. What I mean to say is we should explain this quite concretely, and we will have an explanation. In the next sentence you stated, "Standartenfuehrer Tschentscher had to deal with the food system for the entire Waffen SS, and also for the guards in the concentration camps.
A. He had to deal with these questions. Yes, the guards were part of the Waffen-SS.
Q. Well, he dealt with these questions. That is very clear description. And Tschentscher was one of the people who were subordinate to Georg Loerner and worked under him?
A. Yes.
Q. And therefore you told us you were of the opinion that the food system for the entire Waffen-SS and for the concentration camps was located in Department 5, and that these matters were dealt with there or then, how was it?
A. No, I knew that Tschentscher had nothing to do with it, and that did not come from my own knowledge. Afterwards I asked Tschentscher about that, after the collapse, because I myself appeared here as a witness and was unable to give any information, and I stated in my testimony that I was not informed about the details, but I didn't ask Tschentscher to what extent Loerner had anything to do with it.
Q. Well now, you are getting more unclear about the top-level than before, because Loerner was the superior of Tschentscher?
A. Yes.
Q. You knew that witness?
A. Yes.
Q. And you knew also that Amtsgruppe B dealt with clothing and food questions of the Waffen-SS?
A. Yes.
Q. And nobody makes any objections about that? The difficulties for us here consist of the fact, to what extent are these tasks connected with the administration of the concentration camps? Is that clear to you?
A. Yes. I have already stated that I could not say that from my own knowledge, and that is what I emphasized in my testimony. That is only an assumption on my part. That is what I expressly told the interrogator repeatedly.
Q. Therefore I am to understand you to say that this formulation on the top level has certain catches to it, that is to say, it is not quite correct?
A. That was a result of the discussion that we had on the top level; that is what brought about this expression. The interrogator said, "That is probably the way it was," and I shared his assumption.
Q. And today you are not of that opinion any more?
A. I know just as little today as I knew then. I could not say it then from my own knowledge, and I could not say it now.
Q. But I think the top has been broken off the subject then. May I ask you something else, very briefly? Georg Loerner temporarily, and also in the formal sense was the deputy of Pohl, and in the last years of the war you were Chief of Amtsgruppe A?
A. Yes.
Q. During this period of time did Georg Loerner ever issue any orders to you as the deputy of Pohl?
A. No.
DR. HAENSEL: No further questions.
BY DR. BELZER (For Defendant Sommer):
Q. Witness, did you know the Defendant Sommer while he was a member of the WVHA, that is to say while he was in Amtsgruppe D, did you know him personally?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell us today when, where, and for what reasons and on what occasions you made the acquaintance of the Defendant Soccer?
A. That was on the occasion when I reported to Pohl. That was the 20th of April, 1944, or it was the 21st of April, but it must have been around that time, after he had been appointed a Hauptsturmfuehrer, that is to say, Captain of the Reserve.
Q. Was the grade of the Defendant Sommer known to you, and in what form?
A. I only knew that he was a collaborator, or a member of Amtsgruppe D, and he worked in the allocation of labor. That is Amt D-11.
Q. What do you have to say with regard to the claim of the Prosecution, one, that Sommer had been a Sturmbannfuehrer; and, two, that he had been the Deputy Chief of Office D-II
A. It is practically impossible that he was a Sturmbannfuehrer, because it is highly improbable that he achieved that grade after he only reported to the WVHA in April, 1944, and became Hsuptsturmfuehrer.
At that time it is impossible that he had already become Sturmbannfuehrer in 1945, or that he achieved that grade. I have never heard anything at all about that.
Q. And that he was Deputy Chief of the Office D-II?
A. That did not come to my knowledge.
Q. Was it customary in the WVHA that deputies of office chiefs were appointed?
A. No. Otherwise I would have received the appointment. The appointment as deputy of an office chief was never carried out, and it never occurred within the offices of the WVHA.
Q. Witness-
A. I have not yet finished my answer. Amtsgruppe D, in this case an exception might be made among the other Amtsgruppen. However I also consider this to be highly improbable.
Q. On the 30th of January, 1934, Sommer became a member of the SS. On the 1st of April, 1936, Sommer was conscripted into the Reich Labor Service, and afterwards, on the 2nd of November, 1937, he was drafted into the Wehrmacht. Sommer left the active service in the Wehrmacht because he was wounded, on the 26th of March, 1941, although he was still able to work. I now ask you, Witness, one, what effect would the conscription of Sommer to the Reich Labor Service, and his conscription into the Wehrmacht have on his membership, that is the membership of Sommer in the General-SS?
A. As far as I know from my own membership and my own activity, the membership to the General-SS was not maintained while the person was serving with the armed forces.