Official Transcript of Military Tribunal II, Case IV, in the matter of the United States of America, against Oswald Pohl, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 30 July 1947, 0930-1630. Justice Toms, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
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.
CROSS EXAMINATION (continued) DR. VOLK - resumed BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness, is it your testimony that you did not hear at any time of property being confiscated without remuneration to the owners, which property was used by the SS or the SS industries?
A. This question probably applies to the WVHA only.
Q. First let me ask you about the SS generally, and then separately about the WVHA.
A. I know the RSHA confiscated property and that the owners were disappropriated.
Q. When was that and what kind of property was so confiscated?
A. I don't know individual cases but I believe it must have been after 1938. That was after the legislature had been issued about the Jews.
Q. And was this Jewish property?
A. I assume so. However, I am not informed about the individual cases because I have never worked at the RSHA.
Q. Did you hear about confiscations by the SS without remuneration in occupied territories?
A. I never worked in the occupied territories. I never heard anything about it.
Q. Your answer is that you did not hear anything about it, is that right?
A. I only know that the State authorities confiscated Jewish property. For example, in the Protectorate, and then the owners were disappropriated and this property was transferred to the Reich. Whether the Jews received any compensation I don't know.
Q. Did you ever think about it at all?
A. Yes, I did think about the matter.
Q. And you came to the conclusion that Jews in the occupied territories were compensated for the confiscated property. Is that right?
A. I couldn't get that idea at all because I didn't have any knowledge about the facts, I only knew the legal side.
Q. Well, you said you thought about it. "What conclusion did you come to as to whether the Jews were compensated or not?
A. I did not think about the law De Lege Lata, but I thought about De Lege Ferenda.
Q. You told us about all of the instances of confiscation that you heard about by the SS?
A. Yes, about everything that I heard.
Q. Now, going to the second part of my question. The property that was so confiscated and utilized in some way by the WVHA or SS industries, what did you hear about that?
A. The property which had been owned by Jews and which was used by the WVHA was confiscated on behalf of the Reich. Consequently, it became the property of the Reich. If the WVHA wanted to purchase such property it had to pay the legal purchase price to the German Reich. A person to evaluate the property was appointed by the De Lege Ferenda the Minister of Finance and he had to fix the price. Then the enterprise of the WVHA had to pay that price.
Q. Witness, will you turn to the document in Document Book II that we were discussing last night, NO 1293, on page 51 of the German and 46 of the English. It is Document NO-1293, Exhibit 56.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Mr. Robbins, may I make inquiry here with regard to the examination you have just concluded as to whether the witness knew if the owners of the confiscated Jewish properties were compensated for their losses. I don't know whether that came out clearly or not, just what the witness did know about that.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
MR. ROBBINS: Will you answer that question, witness?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I did not know just how in individual cases the Jews were compensated.
BY JUDGE MUSMANNO:
Q Well, first, let's begin with were they compensated so far as you knew?
AAccording to the legislation of the National Socialist Reich, they had to receive a compensation.
Q What legislation was that?
A That was the decree about the utilization of Jewish property, and this decree was issued in 1938. According to this decree the Jews had to be given a certain compensation, and the approval for this was given by the Chief Finance President. He had to see to it that these properties were purchased for a fair price. If this was a compulsory sale which the Reich Ministry of Finance wanted, let's assume that the Jew in question was told, "You have to sell your property," and he sold that property on his own initiative through a purchasing contract, and the purchasing price was lower than it would have been if a normal evaluation of the property had taken place, then the Chief Finance President fixed a certain Aryanization compensation which the purchaser had to pay to the German Reich.
Q This was in 1938. Was that law ever appealed or amended so far as you know?
A No, it was never changed.
Q All right. Do you know whether it was ever put into practical effect?
A Yes, I know that.
Q Don't you know, as a matter of fact, that it was more observed in the breach, that is to say that more often the owners were not paid? Doesn't the evidence seem to suggest that?
A I did not know that, no. I never heard anything about it.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, do you have the document before you, Exhibit 56?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A Document Book III, on what page?
Q On Page 51 of the German.
A Yes, I have found it now. Oh, yes, we were discussing that document yesterday.
Q Now you see the paragraph on Page 2 of the original? That deals with Operation Heydrich, and this document which you signed states that through the Operation Heydrich a certain number of German construction firms and skilled workers have already been secured for construction projects in the eastern territory for the establishment of supply depots. Suppose you tell us what you thought Operation Heydrich was?
A I did not sign this document. I would like to clarify that matter right now.
Q Your name isn't on the document?
A The document was assigned to me on the stamp of arrival, and then it was addressed to Dr. Kammler. Only afterwards was it turned over to Office Group W for information.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Mr. Robbins, you are just wasting time. He testified yesterday that the document came to him and he initialed it for distribution.
MR. ROBBINS: He wrote his full name on the document as a matter of fact.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: He said he initialed it. That is what his testimony was.
Q (By Mr. Robbins) Now, tell us, Witness, what you thought Operation Heydrich was and how these German construction firms were secured through Operation Heydrich?
A I heard in the main office that the Enterprise Heydrich was an enterprise in order to construct SS and police bases within the Russian territory. This was done because of the size of the occupied territory in Russia. These police and SS bases were to be established. For this reason this enterprise was called Operation Heydrich. That is what I heard in the WVHA. The enterprise as such and the operation was carried out by Office Group C.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us get the right name for this operation. It is Heinrich, not Heydrich.
THE WITNESS: No, the name of the operation is Heinrich, H-e-i-n-r-i-c-h.
Q (By Mr. Robbins) Is that all you can tell us about this operation?
A Yes. Since Office Group C could not carry out this operation with its limited personnel, private construction enterprises were conscripted in order to work in this operation. That is what I know in general about the matter.
Q And who was in charge of this operation?
AAccording to what I heard there was a big dispute between Ex-SS-Gruppenfuehrer Globocnik and SS-Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Kammler. Globocnik wanted to carry out this operation, and Kammler, on the other hand, opposed it, because he was the chief of all the construction work. As far as I can recall an agreement was reached as a result of an intervention by Pohl, and that is how this question was solved. I don't know this for certain, but I think Dr. Kammler was put in charge of carrying out the operation, and I think that Globocnik was charged with the planning. However, I cannot say that for certain. I can only tell you what I learned from hearsay.
Q Do you know that these construction firms were confiscated?
A No. It states here they were secured, and I believe that it would be a false - that we have a false translation in the English document book. The expression to secure something is an expression which is used in German labor law. By securing something we understand that workers are assigned to a certain construction program, or they are furnished to a certain task so that they cannot be used for a different task by another employer.
Q Now, you told us that there were three of these letters, one sent to Gluecks; one to Sauckel, and one to the Chief of the Supreme Command of the Army. Did Kammler sign all three of these letters?
A Yes.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q And you saw all three of them?
A I only looked at the first two pages, and I compared them. I compared the beginning and the end, and then I asked myself, "Why are there three documents?" That is what drew my attention to it.
Q And you made sure that the three letters were identical, is that your testimony?
A The first pages, yes, I looked at them. I looked at the first two pages, and after all this task could not use up much of my time, and I only put on the second page, "Circulation". That was also a matter which I had to pass so it would clear my desk.
Q And you don't know whether these other two so-called letters or alleged letters, whether the list on them was the same as the list on the letter that is in the document book?
A I didn't even look at that list. After all, Office Group W wasn't interested in that list at all, and of course I was not concerned with it either.
Q I just want to ask you one or two more questions about this and go on to another matter. As I understand your testimony, you thought that these four categories, inmates, prisoners of war, Jews and E.T.C., were mutually exclusive categories, is that right, that they did not overlap in any way?
A No, I assumed that Kammler wanted inmates from Gluecks; that he wanted prisoners of war from the Commander in Chief of the Amy, Chief of the P.W. Service; and I thought that he wanted to have the Jews from Sauckel.
Q You didn't think that there were any Jews in the concentration camps, is that right?
A Yes, I knew that some Jews were located in concentration camps.
Q And you knew that Kammler was writing to Gluecks as the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps to be furnished with Jews, didn't you?
A Mr. Prosecutor, if Kammler wanted to procure workers from the concentration camps, then he wouldn't list all these categories. Then Court No. II, Case No. 4.he would only have written down, "I want a certain number of inmates," but he would not specify these other different categories.
After all the term "inmates" applied to all of them.
Q It also applied to prisoners of war, too, didn't it?
A Yes. I only heard in 1945 when I heard about the Nurnberg trial over the radio, that is, when I heard that prisoners of war were also in the concentration camps.
Q Well, witness, you didn't think that Sauckel was recruiting only Jews, did you?
A I didn't think so, no.
Q Now, there are a few questions about concentration camp Stutthof that I want to clear up. Was the property in or near Stutthof, was any property acquired by the DWB?
A The DWB? You are referring to the concern now, aren't you, or are you referring to the G.m.b.H.? You must differentiate between the two.
Q Well, was any such property acquired by either?
A You must differentiate between the DWB concern and the DWB, G.m.b.H.
Q We are not interested in that. Answer my question.
A The DWB concern, that is to say the affiliated companies, and in particular the German Experimental Station for Food, Office W-V, and the DEST Office-I had leased two properties in the vicinity of Stutthof, they had leased them from the German Reich.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q What industry was that, the DEST?
A Yes. The DEST had a brick plant there which it had leased near Stutthof, that was the Brick Works at Stutthof. The German experimental station for food and nutrition operated or leased an estate there; it was called Werderhof.
Q And the purchase of the Brick Works -- you say they were leased. Were they ever -- was a purchase of the Brick Works carried out by Dr. Hoffmann?
A No, I don't know that about Dr. Hoffmann. Dr. Hoffman only was with me in the DWB later on. Before that, for a short period of time, he had been a legal expert with the DEST.
Q Was the title to any other property in or near Stutthof changed in ownership, was the title passed?
A What property are you referring to? Are you referring to the estate Werderhof and the brick plant at Werderhof?
Q Well, there are several different plots of property that are involved here, and I want you to tell me about all of them.
A Well, then I will have to enumerate all of them to you.
Q Go ahead.
A First, we had the school building, then we had the Brick Works at Stutthof.
Q By whom was the school building owned and by whom was it acquired?
A The school building belonged to the Reich Forestry Administration. The SS sector established a school on the property which belonged to the Reich Forestry Administration. Therefore, the school had become the property of the Reich Forestry Administration because according to our law -
Q You have given me the answer. Who purchased this property?
A This property was never actually purchased. A contract was never completed. This is shown by Document Book 14 -
Q You don't have to point out the document, just give me the answers. And what was the second property that you were about to refer to?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A That was the Brick Works at Stutthof.
Q You just answered that. Will you go on to the next plot of property?
A That was the Estate Werderhof.
Q And what transactions were carried out in connection with it?
A The estate of Werderhof was purchased by Office III-A/2 by the German Reich, and it was leased to the German Experimental Station for Food and Nutrition.
Q And were there any other plots of property that changed hands at this time?
A In the vicinity of Stutthof, about 60 kilometers away, there was a Brick Works which was called Hoppenbuehl. By order of Himmler this Brick Works had to be purchased by the DEST from a German woman whose son had been killed during the war and was unable to operate this plant by herself.
Q And is that all the property that was changed?
A Yes, that was all as far as I can remember.
Q Well, what SS-Koncern had plants or industries in Stutthof concentration camp, in and near Stutthof concentration camp?
AAs far as I can recall that was the DAW, GmbH, Office W-Iv, and Office W-I. I can't recall any other ones at the moment.
Q What industries under W-I were located in Stutthof?
A Well, we had the brick works at Stutthof.
Q That was under the DEST?
A Yes, that was the DEST.
Q And what other industries?
A I don't think there were any other ones under the DEST as far as I am informed.
Q Were there any other ones under W-I?
A I don't know of any others.
Q And were inmates used in these SS-Koncerns that you have mentioned as being located in Stutthof?
A Concentration camp inmates? I didn't see them, but I must assume Court No. II, Case No. 4.that.
Q I want to show you several documents on the Stutthof transaction, and ask you to identify them. The first one is Document NO4087, which I will mark as Prosecution Exhibit 613.
Is this document signed by you, witness?
A Will you please let me take a look at the document?
Q Have you read it yet?
A No, I haven't finished yet.
Q Have you finished page 2 yet, witness?
A Yes.
Q Will you look at the last paragraph on page 2? "The Brick Works at the concentration camp ..." The Reference is to the Werderhoff. Are these the Brick Works that were later operated by the DEST?
A I didn't quite understand the translation.
Q You see in the translation on page 2 of the original, a reference is made to the Brick Works at Werderhof. My question is: Are these the Brick Works that were subsequently operated by the DEST?
A Yes.
Q And do you see the preceding paragraph, your suggestion that the DWB get from the Forestry Administration the ground which is necessary for building the concentration camp. Was this proposal carried out?
A No.
Q The DWB did purchase property, did it not?
A No.
Q No property at all was purchased by the DWB and later sold to the Reich?
A No.
Q Is this your signature on the letter, witness?
A Yes.
Q Is it your testimony, witness, that -- well, I think the transcript will show your previous testimony with regard to that matter. I want to show you the next document, NO-4090, which I will mark as Prosecution Exhibit 614.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A Yes.
Q Do you remember participating in this conference?
A Yes.
Q And do you know who prepared this memorandum?
A I did.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q And in the second paragraph a reference is made to the concentration camp which was to afford accommodation for 25,000 inmates. Do you know whether this plan was carried out?
A I did not carry out that plan. After all, I was consulted there...
Q Witness, just answer my question. Was this plan carried out for 25,000 inmates being located in Stutthof? You have seen that from the documents. I am asking you now if you knew it at the time?
A I don't know whether this plan was carried out. That is to say, the purchase.
Q Well, did you know that the concentration camp was erected?
A Yes.
Q And you know that inmates were incarcerated there?
A Yes.
Q So your testimony is that you just didn't know how many inmates were there?
A Yes.
Q Now, at the top of page 2 of the original the draft of a purchase contract was prepared by Dr. Hohberg, it is stated. Did you prepare such a purchase contract?
A The purchase contract was formulated by the Provincial Forest Supervisor. I just made several changes in the contract. However, this contract was never approved.
Q That is all you had to do with this particular contract, is that right?
A Yes-- No, no, you have another document.
Q Yes, I have some more-
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q I see on the bottom of the second page of the original of this Document 4090, that the handwritten note is there by Dr. Hohberg. What did Dr. Hohberg have to do with this transaction?
A Since I was in charge of the legal department of Staff W, I sent this file note to Dr. Hohberg for acknowledgment.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Sent it to him for acknowledgment as what, chief of Staff W?
A Yes.
Q All right.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q You wanted to make an additional statement?
A With regard to the question of His Honor? No, I want to say something with regard to your question. I only wanted to tell you that I was consulted here although I was not competent in the matter, because I could not act on behalf of the legal office of the Reich. And, consequently this whole transaction was carried out later on by the legal office. I was only to purchase the grounds for the school building so that we would be able to clear up the matter easier financially.
Q Let me show you another document, witness, and ask you to identify it. This is Document NO-4082. I will mark it as Prosecution Exhibit 616-
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Mr. Robbins, I didn't get 615 -
MR. ROBBINS: I am sorry, this is 615. I skipped a number. Four-zero-eight-two, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Written by Volk?
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q This is your signature on the letter, is it not?
A Yes, it is.
Q Do you see the statement that Hoffman acquired the brick works for the German Reich?
A Yes.
Q Doesn't that contradict your testimony that you just gave me?
A No, it doesn't
Q I asked you if Hoffmann acquired the brick works for the Reich, and you said that he did not?
A That is correct. I stated that he did not do that, and that is correct.
Q Then the statement ***** --
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A Well, it is wrong to some extent, but not quite wrong. I must explain the matter to you so that you will be able to understand. May I do that?
Q Please do.
A Oberscharfuehrer Hoffmann at the time was still working in the legal department of the DEST. Consequently he was not working for the legal department of Staff W. At the time I believed that Hoffmann would be able to carry out the purchasing contract on behalf of the Reich. However, I made a mistake at the time because I had only been in the WVHA for four, six, or eight months. However, Hoffman actually did not carry out this contract on behalf of the German Reich, as far as I can recall. As far as I can recall, Dr. Ast carried out this purchasing contract for the German Reich. Hoffman was a collaborator in the legal department of the DEST, Office W-I, in my opinion, and I know that now. He could not even act on behalf of the German Reich.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute. Either Hoffmann or somebody else did complete the contracts, and the brick works was acquired by the Reich.
WITNESS: Yes, the Brick Works were purchased by the German Reich, by Office Group A.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q And then the statement in your memorandum that following "my instructions Hoffmann carried out the negotiations in this matter in the meantime, and in particular he acquired the brick works," is incorrect? Is that right?
AAccording to the knowledge which I have today it must be wrong. However, I don't know that the possibility exists that Hoffmann, from the Legal Office A-3, was ordered to act on that one occasion on behalf of the German Reich. That is quite possible. However, I don't know that. After all, at that time he was not yet working in my department.
Q I should like to show you another document, witness, which is 4085, which I will mark as Prosecution Exhibit 616-
Court No. II, Case No. 5.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q May I interrupt. Witness, you said Hoffmann was in the legal department of what? Before he came to Staff W...
A He was in the legal department of the DEST, Office W-I.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q I ask you, with reference to Document 4085, what Amtsgruppe B had to do with this transaction Concentration Camp Stutthof. At the same time-- Well, go ahead and answer my question.
A I do not have any precise knowledge. I assume that Office Group B wanted to receive the rents for the space from offices W-4 and W-5. I have seen that here for the first time now. These are the amounts for the property leased by the German Reich to the economic enterprises.
Q And Office Group B wanted to receive the rents, you said?
A Yes, I assume that, but I don't know it for certain. This is Office Group B. I believe that this is the administration which was in charge of the accommodations, because this administration for accommodations had been mentioned in the document, in my direct examination. However, I want to say now that I cannot make this statement with one hundred percent certainty. The Tribunal should not depend on this statement because I have too little knowledge about Office Group D in this matter.
Q Witness, this is signed by Maurer, is it not?
A Yes, this letter is signed by Maurer.
Q You say this is the first time you heard about it?
A I have seen this letter for the first time here.
Q Well, let me show you another document, witness, that I think will refresh your recollection. This is 4084. I think you must have known a good deal more about this than you have told us. Is this letter signed by you?
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 601?
MR. ROBBINS:NO-4084, I will mark as Prosecution Exhibit 617... This is signed by you, is it not?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
WITNESS: Yes, I did not work on this matter, but it was signed by me.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q And it is in answer to the letter which is Document 4085, is it not?
A Yes, that is correct. It was placed before me for my signature, and the man who worked on the matter was Ansorge. He received the other document, but he didn't show it to me. He handled the matter and he signed it for the DWB G.m.b.H. And that is always the man who handles the matter, according to German law. I signed at the left but I still did not see this letter here. I only signed the answer. It was put before me for the file which contained letters awaiting my signature. That is why I can't recall this letter at all.
Q. You know very well, don't you, what function Office Group B played in this? You were the legal expert there.
A. I was not the legal expert for Office Group B.
Q. What did W-IV and W-V have to do with it?
A. I have already stated that W-IV and W-V had rented the enterprises from the German Reich and the German Reich had purchased these enterprises through the Legal Office, A-III. The German Reich was represented in this case by the WVHA and it leased these enterprises.
(1) It leased the brick works to the DEST, G.m.b.H., to Office W-I.
(2) To the DAW it leased the carpenter shops, Office W-IV.
The Gut Werderhof Estate it leased to Office W-V and for these leased properties the companies had to pay certain interest on the plants.
Q. I think you have answered the question. There weren't any other industries under Office W-V that you haven't mentioned, were there, that are located here?
A. I can't recall any at the moment, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q. What did Office Group C-II, Kiefer's office, have to do with the transaction concerning the sale of property here?
A. As far as I can recall, Office Group C - what office it was I don't know - but Office Group C was to evaluate the property and that was the property on which this school was to be established. They were just to give an estimate of the value of that. A purchasing contract could be concluded; however, afterwards, this project was not carried out at all.
Q. This was Office C-II, wasn't it?
A. I don't know what office it was. I am actually an outsider, a layman, as far as Office Group C is concerned. I am just a greenhorn.
Q. Let me see if this helps you recall. This is NO-4086, which I will mark as Prosecution Exhibit 618. Is your name on this document, witness?
A. Please give me an opportunity to read the document first.
Q. You can see your signature down there, can't you, without read ing the whole document?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, all these things happened six years ago. You can't rush me here. After all, I want to make true statements. My name was put down on that document.
Q. Now tell us, after you have read the document--
THE PRESIDENT: I don't like that "my name is put down on the document." Did you sign it?
THE WITNESS: No, I did not.
Q. Your name is at the bottom of the document, isn't it?
A. Yes, my name is contained in the document. However, I did not write that.
Q. And who is the Obersturmfuehrer that signed the document?
A. Obersturmfuehrer -- I shall find the name in just a moment.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Is that so important, Mr. Robbins?
MR. ROBBINS: I think we can go on.
THE WITNESS: I have just found the name. It was Obersturmfuehrer Finke.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: How did your name get on this document? Did you put it on there?
THE WITNESS: Obersturmfuehrer Finke put my name down on that document.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Why?
THE WITNESS: Because this matter probably was to be brought to my attention.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Was it brought to your attention?
THE WITNESS: I can't recall that any more, Your Honor. I cannot recall it. Since I did not countersign it with DrV, which I usually did in a matter which was sent to me, I assume, but I don't know it for certain, that it was not brought to my knowledge. However, I know something about the matter in general.
Q. Tell us first who wrote your name at the bottom of the document Didn't you? Isn't that your handwriting?
A. No, it is not.
Q. It is Obersturmfuehrer Winkle's handwriting?
A. Finke.
Q. That's not your handwriting?
A. No.
Q. Tell us what C-II had to do with the matter.
A. If the purchase of the school had been approved by the Reich Forestry Administration and if that contract had been concluded, and if the DWB, G.m.b.H., on its part would have sold the school and the property to the German Reich, then DWB would have paid 300,000 Reichsmarks to several of the Regular Police and the remainder of the sale -- it is normally put at one and a half million, where actually it would have been seven or eight hundred thousand marks, it would have been turned over to the company which was to carry out that construction after the war. Dr. Kammler intended to put all the public utility construction firms into Office C-II and the Allort was already contained there and the First Wiener, G.m.b.H., and the Public Utilities Housing and Real Estate, G.m.b.H., was to be taken out from the so-called Staff W, and it was to be transferred to Office C-II. For this reason this document was written in order to carry out the construction program after the war.
Q. And you see the reference to Standartenfuehrer Loerner?
A. I didn't understand your question.
Q. This reference to Hans Loerner.
A. Yes.
Q. And what did Amtsgruppe A have to do with the matter, specifically A-II or A-I?
A. This refers to the document in Document Book IV. Standartenfuehrer Loerner was to see to it that the Chief of the Regular Police was to receive the 300,000 marks or the Auditing Court ordered him to pay back the 300,000 marks to the Regular Police. That is why the name Standartenfuehrer Loerner is mentioned here. This matter is connected with the document--