The document I have just handed to you is 4070. I will mark that as Prosecution Exhibit 588 for identification. This is addressed to Amtsgruppe and to Amt A/III, and concerns the acquisition of land for the project. Did you see this letter, witness?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Who is it initialed by?
A. It is signed by Hoffmann and I countersigned.
Q. I would like to show you another very interesting document, witness, that may help your memory on this. It is a file note written by you.
DR. FRITSCH: Mr. President, may I interrupt. So far Mr. Robbins has only been introducing documents and given the witness an opportunity to say something about those documents in very few cases. Therefore, I would appreciate it if Mr. Robbins would permit him to do so. The witness so far has only received one document after another without actually being in a position to say whether he saw it or not.
MR. ROBBINS: I will give him the chance to explain. I think he said in each instance whether or not he saw this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that all you want to show, that he knew of such a document?
MR. ROBBINS: That's all I have asked him so far, Your Honor. I intend to show more by it.
THE PRESIDENT: If Mr. Robbins doesn't ask all the questions you want you can ask the witness when Mr. Robbins is through.
DR. FRITSCH: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Is this your signature on document NO-4076?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. This is dated 20 October 1944, Exhibit 589 for identification. This is several months before the letter of the 4 December 1944 but it is for a period after the beginning of the graph, which is Exhibit 583.
Perhaps you can tell us why it is that it was necessary to keep these reports in the secret files. It wasn't because reports showed that inmate laborers were dying at their work, was it?
A. I believe that the graph which I saw was from the month of December, that was 13 of December.
Q. It started on first of October through the last of December. Correction - through the last of November. The letter is 4th December. That wasn't why it was marked secret and kept in the safe was it?
A. The letter dated 4 December you referred to, you mean?
Q. Let me ask you this. Isn't it true that all of these documents were kept in a secret safe in the WVHA building?
A. They were kept in the files is to be assumed but if they were secret I do not know but it is stressed that it was a report to the ReichFuehrer.
Q. Do you remember what this report of Pohl's to the ReichFuehrer concerned, what it was about?
A. No, I don't. I believe the file note was made only for the public files in order to know such a report was written.
Q. It wasn't to insure that it would be kept a secret matter, was it?
A. I can't tell you the contents of the report.
Q. You don't recall today that all of these documents that I have shown you and all of the letters concerning the Slate Oil Company were kept in a safe and were considered secret material. You don't recall that?
A. If I take a look at this document here for instance concerning the purchase of land I don't see that it was in the secret files.
Q. Which one was not in the secret files?
A. I assume it wasn't in the secret files because there is nothing concerning the files here. I mean the report dated 5 February 1944 which refers to the purchase of land.
Q. I would like to show you 2 more documents on this subject matter, witness. The first one is 4075 which I will mark as Prosecution Exhibit 590. Can you tell us first who signed this letter NO 4075?
A. I can't make out the signature. There was no Captain or SSObersturmfuehrer in Staff W.
Q. And it is addressed to Dr. Volk. Do you remember seeing this letter.
A. No, I don't.
Q. Did you discuss the contents with anyone?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Did you have any contact yourself with Sommer about this matter, about anything to do with the Slate Oil Company?
A. I don't recall having had anything to do with Sommer.
Q. Did you ever talk to him on the telephone? Did you ever write to him?
A. In view of all the many things I had to work on, I really couldn't tell you for sure if I did or not.
Q. You can't remember today whether or not you ever wrote Sommer about inmate labor, allocation of inmates, allocation of guards?
A. No.
Q. You can't remember, or you remember that you didn't? What is your statement?
A. Well, a document has already been shown which referred to the guards, unless I am very much mistaken, but I didn't deal with that document. I really can't remember having sent a letter to Sommer.
Q. The letter that you are referring to is NO-3794, signed by you, and you make this statement:
"Upon your request for information, I inform you that I have established immediate contact with Office Group D..."
You say, "I have established immediate contact with Office Group D and have requested that by all means 79 men be detached as guard detail for the oil field there. SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Sommer of Office Group D II has promised to take the case up with SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Harbohm and to cause the necessary steps to be taken."
Does that help your recollection any?
A. I don't have the document before me. This isn't the document that was shown before, is it?
Q. I'll show it to you again. This is NO-3794.
A. Yes, I saw that before. That was taken care of in Staff W by Dr. Volk, and I signed it.
That is correct.
Q. Well, I am asking you again: Do you recall having made any contact yourself with Sommer? Do you remember that you didn't? Do you remember that you did not? Just what is your recollection?
A. I cannot recall having done it.
Q. The last document I should like to show you in this series is NO-4074. I'll mark that as Prosecution Exhibit 591 for identification. I ask you if you remember seeing this letter, 7 February 1945, concerning the purchase of the real estate for this project?
A. Yes, I did see that. It was taken care of by the expert of Dr. Hoffman, and I received it for informational purposes. It is addressed to the legal office, A-III, and deals with the purchase of real estate.
DR. FRITSCH: Excuse me, Your Honor. I believe that we have received different documents here. The witness is just speaking about a letter which was addressed to the legal office, A-III; as Exhibit 191 I received a letter addressed to the Deutsche Schieferoel, G.m.b.H., dated 7 February 1945. Therefore, there must be some misunderstanding.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness, do you have a letter dated 7 February 1945 in your hands?
A. I have a letter here dated 7 February 1945, and it is addressed to the legal office, A-III, within the building, and dealt with by Staff W and Dr. Hoffmann.
Q. You have been given the wrong document. I'll hand you a mimeographed copy of the letter and show you the photostat in the morning. Do you recall having seen this letter? Witness, do you have Document NO-4074 in your hands?
A. Yes, I do. It is addressed to the Deutsche Schieferoel, G.m.b.H. and deals with the purchase of real estate. I took cognizance of this letter and it was handled by Dr. Hoffmann of Staff W.
Q. Can you tell us briefly what Office Group A and A-III had to do with this matter?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, I didn't quite understand your statement. Amtsgruppe A?
Q. Amtsgruppe A, and particularly A-III.
A. From the sentence concerning the question of whether the area was to be purchased or leased for the inmates' camp, the legal office, Amtsgruppe A, as the competent office for the purchase of real estate, has to decide on this; according to my opinion this shows that the legal expert is of the opinion that such a purchase of real estate for a camp for inmates is not up to Staff W, but rather that the Reich has the right of decision as the competent agency. That can be seen from that sentence.
Q. It was the job of A-III to make the purchases for the sites for concentration camps, is that what you are saying?
A. In this case this is shown because it is stated here that the legal office of Amtsgruppe A has a right to decide as a competent agency for a purchase of real estate for the Reich.
Q. I can see that from the letter. I am asking you generally. You know generally that it was the function of A-III to make purchases of concentration camp sites generally? That was handled through A-III?
A. I have no experience in this field and I couldn't tell you anything at all because this particular case is unique. There was never another such case during all the time when I was there. In the Deutsche Schieferoel it worked out this way, that, practically speaking, it was only a name, a fictitious name, because the factory was in the hands of the German Oil Scientific Research G.m.b.H. This German Oil Scientific Research was under a Reich agency, and it was the one that established the factories. In Schieferoel G.m.b.H., which existed as such, there was no factory.
Q. I didn't ask you all that. I just asked you if you knew generally that it was A-III's job to purchase sites for concentration camps. You can answer that yes or no.
A. No, I don't know it. In this case it should be assumed, but otherwise I didn't know anything about it.
Q. I think the record will show that you have testified that you saw all of this long series of letters, except the letter for 18 October 1944 and the letter of 4 December 1944, Exhibit 590 and Exhibit 582. You still maintain, witness, that in spite of this you had no knowledge of the contents of the letter of 4 December 1944? You never heard anything about the working conditions there?
A. If I didn't see the letter, then it is to be assumed that I didn't have any knowledge about these things.
Q. Who, do you think, received this letter - who in Staff W?
A. May I take a look at the document, please? After all I couldn't tell you without taking a look at it.
Q. You see that it is marked for the chief of Staff W.
A. According to the entry stamp Dr. Wenner put his initials, and Dr. Hoffmann was the one who wrote the file note, the file notes on the left-hand side. Therefore, I didn't have any knowledge.
Q. You didn't talk to them about it; they didn't talk to you about it. May I just ask one more question, Your Honor, before we recess? I should like to show you again NO-4077, Exhibit 587, which you say you did receive, and it is about the--
A. Yes, quite so.
Q. ---same subject matter, namely, conditions at the camp at Bisingen, and he refers here in his letter by the same writer, Jacobi, he says, "This lack has led to the conditions already described." You knew very well what conditions?
A. Yes, I do know this letter.
Q. And you knew very well what conditions he had already described?
A. That the conditions were bad there can be seen from this letter.
Q. That is the letter that you received.
A. And that certain efforts were being made to improve and change those conditions, because there is a request here for rubber boots, accommodations, etc., etc. Therefore there was to be an improvement.
Q. You weren't curious to find out what he was talking about when he said that he had already described the conditions to you?
A. It is possible that bad conditions were discussed. The possibility is not excluded, but I was not informed of details if I didn't see the document. I assume that it did not appear, otherwise I would have remembered it.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until tomorrow morning at nine-thirty.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until nine-thirty tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 24 July 1947 at 0930 hours.)
Official transcript of Military Tribunal No. II, Case IV, in the Matter of the United States of America against Oswald Pohl, et al., defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 24 July 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Toms presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II. Military Tribunal II is now in session.
God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal There will be order in the court?
THE PRESIDENT: The record will indicate that the defendant Kiefer is absent from this session of the Court because of illness. The trial will proceed in his absence.
DR. HOFFMANN (Counsel for defendant Scheide): May it please Your Honor, I have a question with regard to the proceedings. I take it that in general the results of the introduction of evidence will be dealt with in our closing speeches. Tribunal No. I, the case of the doctors, has desired that we also compiled so-called closing briefs and write the necessary comment on the introduction of evidence there. I would appreciate, that should this Tribunal also be of the same opinion as Tribunal No. I -- that possibly a closing brief should be submitted by the defense counsels to the Tribunal -- that we may be informed in time so that we may be able to prepare it, because otherwise it would in the end result in difficulties, particularly also with reference to the translations.
Personally, I would appreciate it if I could deal with the entire presentation of evidence in the closing speech rather than in a closing brief.
One more fact which should not be forgotten is that the time may be fixed for the final plea should not be too short. In the Military Tribunal No. 1, one hour only has been fixed in view of closing briefs for this final plea being submitted. However, if this Tribunal does not wish a closing brief and that would be in my interest also, then I would wish to ask if you would fix the time for the Plaedoyer to be one to two hours.
I am putting this request before you already at such an early date now because I would like to have the Tribunal's decision before I prepare the closing brief, if any, and the final plea.
May it please Your Honor, may I say something else in this connection? My colleagues did not quite agree with me on the time of one to two hours. They assume that they might possibly need three hours for the closing plea. I would appreciate it if you would consider the time limit of one or two hours for me only. As for the others -
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Robbins, do you propose to file a brief on behalf of the Prosecution, indicating which parts of the proof you consider of value as to each defendant?
MR. ROBBINS: I certainly intend to. I hope that I can do it, and I expect to do it.
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, may I add something very briefly? I would again like to stress the point that all the Defense Counsels in the Medical Trial agree that as far as the Defense is concerned, they are not too happy about the closing briefs because the difficulties of the translation and other things have shown, that it would be much better if we could possibly present the entire matter in the final plea The defendants also feel that whatever is presented here by the defense counsels in this Tribunal, is more impressive than would be a closing brief. Therefore, I should like to plead for a plea.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean, Dr. Hoffmann to you will make oral arguments instead of written briefs?
DR. HOFFMANN: Yes.
DR. GAWLIK (Counsel for defendants Volk and Bobermin): Your Honor, I believe that my colleague Hoffmann has spoken only on his behalf. These ideas about the closing briefs do vary as far as I know. A closing brief can only be disposed with, when the Defense Counsel has a sufficient time for the final argument, because otherwise it would be jeopardizing the Defense if one does not have the opportunity to submit the entire material which he considers necessary for the defense.
DR. FROESCHMANN (For Defendant Mummenthey): Mr. President, may I make a suggestion? I hear for the first time that my colleague, Dr. Hoffmann, in this trial raises the question of the time limit of the final pleas and the filing of a closing brief. The defense counsels within the SS trial have so far not yet taken any position towards that question and therefore think it inappropriate to have the Tribunal deal now with a question which is of importance to all defense counsel and which is suggested by only one counsel. I would like to make the suggestion that the entire matter be discussed by a commission and submitted to your Honors, and that decision may only then be taken.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we can say this much this morning. The time allowed for argument will not be three hours. It will be less than three hours, but not less than one hour. We are not fixing the time this morning, but don't count on three hours. You can count on one hour, possibly no more. We will decide that later. With eighteen defendants it would be out of the question to devote three hours to each defendant's argument, moreover, it wouldn't be needed. Everything can be properly presented in less than three hours certainly. Now, just a minute.
Well, Dr. Hoffmann, speaking just for yourself now, do you propose to have your final argument in manuscript form, written out?
DR. HOFFMANN: Yes, indeed.
THE PRESIDENT: So that the translators can read it as they translate. Well, what do you mean by a brief then?
DR. HOFFMANN: Apart from this final argument in the medical trial a brief has been introduced in which the individual arguments of the prosecution and the rebuttal by the defense have been set down against each other, very detailed and point by point, testimony for the defendant or testimony against the defendant. Then from the comparison of these statements once the defense, inclosing brief, has drawn the conclusion, that is the reason why the defendant cannot be sentenced, so that the final argument has only brought the broad outline but not the individual small finesses upon which the individual argument is based.
THE PRESIDENT: This Tribunal has no desire to hear an argument and also to read a brief. The purpose of this argument is to do just what you were talking about in the brief, that is to take up the different points against each particular defendant and show that they are either good or bad for him. So we are satisfied with an argument only without a brief. Then we will have a transcript of your argument, and that is a brief. It is all the brief we feel we need anyway. Now, this will take a burden off both defense counsel and the translation division and also the Court.
The Tribunal has determined that each counsel will have one hour and one half for closing argument. If in some particular case it develops that is not enough, the Tribunal will entertain a request for additional time, but your argument should be framed with the idea that an hour and a half is the limit. If at that time some counsel has found that he has not adequately argued his case, we will gladly listen to a request for further time.
Now, is it understood that the arguments are to be in writing so that they can be translated for the benefit of the interpreters? That is, they won't have to interpret as they hear your argument for the first time. They will have a copy in front of them. All right.
It is also understood that any request for additional time beyond the hour and a half will be made in time to get the translation ready and that it won't be made at the end of the hour and a half. It will be made ahead of time.
HANS BAIER - Resumed CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness, you told us yesterday that you knew that conditions at the German Slate Oil Company, (Deutsche Oelschiefer, G.m.b.H.) and the working conditions there were bad.
Just how bad did you know they were?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, I would like to point out that the Schieferoel, G.m.b.H. did not have a plant. There was only Hauptsturmfuehrer Jacobi who was a collaborator of Pohl's and a liaison officer, who had been sent there for that purpose; namely, in order to make certain observations there, particularly with respect to the establishment of those plants by the Deutsche Bau-Und Huettengesellschaft. The company which established the plant was not a company of Staff W but was part of the Reich Office, that is to say, part of a high Reich office which was the Reich Office for Economic Expansion. That was the Deutsche Erdopl-Forschungsgesellschaft.
Q. I don't think you are answering my question, witness. I asked you what you knew about conditions there. You said you knew they were bad. I ask you how bad were they, to your knowledge?
A. From the letter by Hauptsturmfuehrer Jacobi of the 6th of December I was informed about those matters, and in this letter it is stated what measures he took. I could understand from it that, as it is stated there, the OT had undertaken the duty to establish a camp. That was the reason why I had to assume that he had gone there and had found unbearable and intolerable conditions.
Furthermore, thereupon, he had arranged for a series of measures in order to create order again.
I would like to point out that this was the only oil deposit in Germany, and I know that there was an order by Hitler to take all the possible measures in order to exploit that oil deposit. It was not only the Reichs Office for Economic Expansion that was working on this matter but also the German Office for Immediate Action.
Q. You say then that you understood from the letter of the 6th of December that the conditions were unbearable and intolerable. Is that what you said? Isn't that what you just said, witness? Tell us what you just said about that.
A. They are speaking of the conditions which apparently were due to the Organization Todt not being properly informed. In any case, there was something wrong there. I could read that from that part of the letter-
Q. Excuse me. Didn't you just tell us that you understood from this letter that conditions were--to use your own words--"unbearable and intolerable"? That became clear from the letter, didn't it?
A. From the letter it became clear that the conditions, in any case, were not in order because the six points which are contained in the end of the letter show that.
Q. Then, witness, the first sentence in the letter says referring to his letter of the fourth of December. He says he is giving you the following additional facts.
He refers to conditions already described in his letter of the fourth of December.
You weren't curious to look at the letter of the fourth of December, is that right?
A. At that time, it was not possible to see every letter and maybe this letter came to Pohl, because as I can see from the -
Q. This letter came to Pohl's attention, didn't it? It was received by one of your staff members?
A. Yes, he gave it to Pohl directly without my having taken note of it. If I had been there on that day--I probably wasn't there, you see; then, I would have seen the letter.
Q. Suppose you tell us if you heard of any other working conditions connected with SS industries that were not quite up to normal?
A. You mean outside of the Schieferoel G.m.b.H?
Q. Yes.
A. Mr. Prosecutor, of course it is possible at all times--and particularly in the six years of the war--that somewhere, on some occasion, the working conditions were not quite in order; but those things, however, according to my knowledge of the things, should have been referred to Pohl directly; I don't believe that the question-
Q. I don't ask you who it should be referred to; I just ask you what you heard about them? Is that the only instance that you heard about where conditions were bad?
A. I can't recall any other case.
Q. This is the only case you remember about it?
A. Yes.
Q. Here in the Schiefer Oil did you hear that anybody had died? Any of the inmates?
A. I can't recall.
Q. Never heard of that? Did you hear that anybody was sick?
A. According to my recollection, no.
Q. Did you follow up this situation to see that an improvement was made?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, that was not within my sphere of competence.
Q. I just asked you if you did. Is the answer no?
A. Well, something was done according to this letter of the sixth of December; that letter was dealt with.
Q. I am asking you, after the sixth of December did you follow it up to find out if any improvements were made?
A. I would like to point out to the letter dated the 13th of December; it is stated that "Upon your request for information I inform you that I have established immediate contact with Office Group D and have requested that by all means 79 men be detached as guard detail for the oil field there. SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Sommer, of Office Group D II has promised to take the case up with SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Harbohm and to cause the necessary steps to be taken."
Q. Were these 79 men sent there to improve the working conditions?
A. No, but I assume that the guard personnel at the same time had the duty there to see to it that order existed there. As can be seen from the dictation mark, from the initial on the side this letter was dealt with by Dr. Volk and I assume that he came to see me with the completed letter, and possibly also told me that Jacobi had asked him to participate in eliminating certain deficiencies. That is how I signed that letter.
Q. And you stick to your testimony that this is the only instance where bad working conditions were reported to you?
A. I have stated before, Mr. Prosecutor, it is possible, of course, that towards the end of the war the working conditions somewhere possibly have become worse, as I said before, possibly as a result of air-raids by force weakened, or through illness. But I don't remember ever having heard about it.
Q. You don't remember receiving any reports about it addressed to Staff W?
A. No, I don't; and I believe that I would have passed them on to Pohl immediately because I was not competent for him.
Q. Do you exclude the possibility that such reports came in?
A. If you are referring to the letter of the 6th of December then I may say that this letter actually should not have been sent to Staff W but rather to Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl direct. It was because Tacoly was his liaison man who received his orders from Pohl-not from me. And why he did that I couldn't tell you. It is possible that a letter went--via Staff W --
Q. Excuse me, you are not answering my questions. We will get along much faster if you will just answer the questions as I put them to you.
Do you exclude the possibility that you received other reports on bad working conditions?
A. I think it improbable.
Q. You may be interested, with reference to a comment you just made about air-raids being the cause for the bad conditions, that in the letter of the fourth of December, 1944, Jacobi reports, says in his letter, "There is no bombing damage to report."
Do you remember being interrogated on the sixth of January, 1947, witness?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Did you tell the interrogator at that time that you had heard about bad conditions in labor installations, and had made attempts to improve them?
A. I can't remember, but if I said it then possibly I was thinking about that letter of the 6th of December.
Q. Now, tell us, witness, what all of this has to do with auditing, and then we will pass on to another matter. Did you deal with this in your capacity as an auditor? Or was this another "special project?"
A. These documents? You mean these documents, Mr. Prosecutor, which have been submitted so far?
Q. Yes, concerning the Slate Oil Company.
A. That was a special case, and as I stated before, was due to the unique conditions which prevailed at the time. As I stated before, the construction activity was a matter which was dealt with by an entirely different company, and so was the establishment of the plant. Jacobi was merely liaison officer and the concentration camps, that is to say they were labor camps, and as I have seen from the documents they were from Natzweiler. They had not been placed at the disposal of those agencies which were carrying out construction work there, and they also had applied for the inmates. I have no certain knowledge about it but that was the way it was because these were the plants. And if Jacobi noticed bad conditions, as a liaison man by Pohl, and has reported about them I can see from the documents that he immediately saw to it that all those dificiencies which he noticed were taken care of at once.