Q Did you have any head wear, anything for the head?
A No.
Q Were you issued any socks?
A No.
Q What about underwear?
A We did not have any at all.
Q Was it very cold at Ohrdruf during the winter?
A It was very cold.
Q What was the daily food ration, do you remember?
A In the morning we were given half a liter of black water, so-called coffee, then in the evening we were given one liter of soup which contained several potatoes, and furthermore we got the course and were given one-fourth of a loaf of bread and nothing else. And twice a week we were given a piece of margerine and a piece of sausage, and whenever we could not get any sausage we were given a little bit of marmalade.
Q Now, what work did you do in the hospital there?
AAs a nurse.
Q And what diseases did the inmates suffer from who came to the hospital?
A Typhus, erysipelas, phlegmon and diarrhea.
Q Who was the SS doctor at this hospital?
A Dr. Gremius.
Q Can you tell us anything about the death rate in Ohrdruf?
A There were lots of people who died.
Q Well, can you say that on some days there were as many as fifty a day who died?
A Perhaps on several days.
Q And how long were you in Ohrdruf?
A I remained there until the day we were evacuated. That was the 2nd of April, 1945.
Q Well, you were there for approximately six months, then, is that right?
A Yes.
Q Did Dr. Gremius have a method of classifying prisoners according to their ability to work?
A Dr. Gremius carried out the selection in the camp. People were given physical examination in muster. I attended such a muster that Dr. Gremius was in charge of. Dr. Gremius divided the inmates into four groups.
The first group consisted of people who were 100 per cent healthy, who were sent to the outside camp for hard labor.
The second group contained people who were healthy up to 90 per cent. They were destined to go to the inside camp and also for hard labor in the camp.
The third group consisted of people of which 50 per cent were healthy, who were used for the easy work within the camp.
The fourth group consisted of all people who were incapable of working.
Q And what was done with persons in this fourth group? Do you know?
A They were separated and they were put into horse-stable barracks.
Q And what happened to them?
A Part of them starved to death. However, I have to add one more thing: that the fourth group, the people incapable of working, were given 50 per cent of our food, and those who did not die were shipped away in transports?
Q Do you know where they were sent to, what camp?
A It was said that this Dr. Gremius had stated they were going to a convalescent home.
Q They sent them to Bergen-Belsen, which they called a recreation camp, is that right?
A That is what was said, that they were sent to a recreation home at Bergen-Belsen.
Q Did you also say a minute ago that the persons in Group 4 were given 50 per cent less food than the other inmates?
A Yes.
Q Now, Doctor, do you know who was in control of the construction work going on at Ohrdruf?
A Doctor-Engineer Kammler.
Q How were the medical facilities in Ohrdruf? Were they good or bad?
A They were very bad.
Q Did they have sufficient drugs?
A No.
Q Were any inmates injured working at Ohrdruf?
AA large number.
Q And when a man was injured when he was working in one of the tunnels did they immediately bring him out of the tunnel to the hospital?
A No.
Q What did they do?
A He had to wait until the whole detachment returned to the camp, because they went back under guard.
Q In other words, they kept the injured person in there until the whole group came back in the evening, is that right?
A Yes.
Q How long did the inmates work?
A We worked there in three shifts.
Q Would that be eight hours for each shift?
A Yes.
Q Did many of the inmates die from malnutrition? Did you notice whether many of them were emanciated?
A Very many.
Q And was there a big turn-over in the number of inmates? Were there many coming in quite often, as well as leaving?
A Yes, transports arrived at Ohrdruf.
Q Can you mention some of the concentration camps from which prisoners were sent in to Ohrdruf?
A Yes. Flossenburg, Auschwitz, Dachau.
Q Were many of the inmates who were shipped into Ohrdruf sick upon their arrival and unable to work?
A Yes, several of their numbers.
Q Now, where did these prisoners live? Where did they sleep?
A In the barracks.
Q And what were their living conditions in the barracks? What did they sleep on?
A Slept in wooden bunks. There were three bunks in each room. They were above each other.
Q How many men did they have in each bunk? Did they have a bunk for each man or did several inmates have to sleep on one bunk?
A Sometimes two persons had to sleep in one bunk.
Q Did any of the prisoners have to sleep and live in the tunnels or did they have enough room in the barracks?
A They were in the barracks.
Q Now, is the name Pook familiar to you?
A Yes.
Q Where did you hear that name?
A I heard the name at Ohrdruf.
Q In what connection? Will you explain how you happen to know the name Pook?
A Well, in connection with prisoners of another place, in connection with the prohibition of the use of anesthetics in the extraction of inmates' teeth.
Q Was Pook a dentist?
A Yes.
Q And did he actually visit Ohrdruf?
A I have seen him on one occasion, accompanied by Dr. Gremius.
Q And you say that he gave the order that tooth extractions would have to be made without anesthesia, is that correct?
A That is what we were told.
Q Do you think you would recognize Dr. Pook if you saw him again?
A I believe so, yes.
Q Do you see him in the dock over here?
A (The witness pointed in the direction of the prisoners' dock.) Well, the one over there.
Q Will you stand up, please?
A (The witness stood up.)
Q Now, will you indicate the seat and row in which you see the man, Pook?
AAt the wall, the first soldier, the second, the one in the light suit -- that is Pook.
Q Well, I am still not clear on the identification -
THE PRESIDENT: He said, the soldier, then another, then the man in the light suit, then Pook.
THE WITNESS: After the man in the light suit, that is Pook.
MR. MC HANEY: I will ask that the record show that he properly identified the Defendant Pook.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will so indicate.
Q Doctor, will you describe whether Ohrdruf was evacuated and what happened then?
A Ohrdruf was evacuated on the second of April. All of us were told to report to the parade ground together with all the patients. All the patients who were able to walk came out; other patients were carried out by the inmates. Then all the blocks were searched, and whenever a person was discovered who had hidden himself in the block or under the bed or under a bed cover or under the straw -then he was immediately shot down. Then trucks arrived and the patients who were unable to go up to the trucks by themselves were thrown on the trucks. Then the camp was again searched. Whenever a person was found, this person was immediately shot. The patients were then driven away in the trucks. The physicians and the nursing personnel remained behind.
Q And did you manage to escape, Doctor?
A Only on the first of April. The medical and the nursing personnel went on foot, and we were taken to the city of Imm, and from Imm to Nadigenschein -- I think it was called -- and already that is part of the escape. We were placed in a barn to rest. During the night I escaped, together with two other colleagues. Until the 14th of April I remained in hiding in the mountains. Then we crossed the German-American line and we again arrived at the city of Imm, and we were immediately protected by the American military authorities.
Q Are you now practicing medicine, Doctor?
A Yes.
MR. McHANEY: I have no further questions at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: Cross-examination? Before you begin, may I ask a question.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q When you were arrested, Doctor, were you told the reason why you were being arrested?
A No.
Q Did you ever have a trial or a hearing before you were sent to the camp?
A Never.
Q In the cars -- the freight cars in which you traveled -could the men lie down?
A It was almost impossible.
Q Why?
A Because so many people were crowded in these freight cars.
Q Was there any water to drink?
A No.
Q Were there any toilets?
A No.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q Doctor, in the two camps that you were in, were there just men inmates -- or men, women and children?
A In Auschwitz, in that particular camp, where I was in the camp, and also in the Camp-F, there were only men.
Q Were you a Polish citizen when you were arrested and taken to the concentration camp?
A Yes.
Q Were you arrested by the Germans?
A Yes.
Q Where?
AAt Tarnow.
Q Were you living there and practicing medicine, or were you there as a result of being driven out of Poland?
A I lived there together with my wife and my two children, and I was working there as a physician.
Q And you never were told why you were sent to the concentration camp?
A No.
Q What affect did your treatment in these camps have on you personally? On your health?
A I am not in good physical condition.
Q Did you lose weight?
A I lost a large amount of weight. At the time of my release I only weighed thirty-six kilograms -- that is seventy-two pounds.
Q What was the nationality of the people in these camps, mostly. Were they Russians, Poles or Jews? What was the predominating nationality?
A They were mainly Jews.
Q Are you Jewish?
A Yes.
Q That is all.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q The city, the place where you were arrested, was that in Poland or in Germany?
A That was in Tarnow.
Q Well, that is in Poland?
A Yes, that is in Poland.
THE PRESIDENT: Cross-examination, Dr. Seidl?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. SEIDL:
Q Witness, you have testified that you were born in Taroslaw.
A Yes.
Q When the war broke out in 1939 you were told to go to the East?
A Yes.
Q What was the reason?
A We were to report there to the military command?
Q And you did so?
A Yes.
Q And then you were arrested in 1943?
A Yes.
Q And apparently, for the reason, as I thought from your answers, that you were of Jewish descent.
A Yes.
Q Now you are living in Munich?
A Yes.
Q According to your testimony I have to assume that you were mistreated by the Germans during the war, and I now ask you: What are the reasons that prevent you now from going back to your Polish fatherland? After all, you are a Polish citizen, aren't you?
A Because I do not want to.
Q Well, I am asking you, why don't you want to go back?
A Because I have lost everything I had in Poland. I have lost my wife in Auschwitz, my child in Auschwitz; I have lost my apartment and furniture and all the property which I owned.
DR. SEIDL: No further questions, Your Honors.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other cross-examination.
DR. RATZ (Counsel for the defendant Pook):
BY DR. RATZ:
Q You said that you knew the name of Pook in connection with the prohibition to use other dentists' treatments, and that extractions had to be done without anesthesia. I want to ask you now: How do you know that such an order existed at all?
A I heard that from the camp, in the hospital, and from the physicians with whom I worked.
Q But how do you know that this order originated from Pook?
A That is what was said.
Q Who said that?
A The prisoners.
Q Do you know who was the responsible camp dentist at Buchenwald?
A No.
Q You never heard the name of Dr. Abraham?
A No.
Q Why do you know Dr. Pook?
A Because I saw him together with Dr. Gremius.
DR. RATZ: No further questions, Your Honors.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q When you were arrested, what happened to your wife and children?
A On the second of October 1943, my wife and my child were sent away with a transport. Then, when I was at Auschwitz, I tried to obtain some information as to just what had happened to this transport -- which at that time left from Tarnow, Czernow, Bocna, Prozeml, and Krakow -- just what had happened to the transport. Then I was told they were all sent to the gas chambers and cremated.
Q Did you have two children?
A Yes; one child is with me.
Q Did you ever see your wife and your other child after you were separated from them?
A I never saw them again. The last time I saw them was at the parade ground at Tarnow.
Q You have no idea of what became of them?
A No, I only know that this transport, on the second or third of October 1943, left for Auschwitz; that all these people were immediately sent to the gas chambers without any previous selection.
Q How were you able to save one child, the one who is with you now?
A In the year 1942 when we were not as yet confined to the ghetto but when we were living in the Jewish part of town, then my maid took the child with her to a Polish village; and she kept it there. When I returned she had the child sent to me. It came to me in April 1946, to Munich.
Q Then you child was saved by your maid, your servant?
A Yes.
Q It was protected until you were released?
A Through the maid, through the servant, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further cross examination? The Marshal may escort this witness from the Courtroom.
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, I will continue with the presentation of documents from Document Book Number 7. Yesterday we had reached Document 1612-PS on Page 105 of the English Document Book; and we were concerned with the introduction of proof of the freezing experiments by Dr. Rascher and his associates at Dachau. The Document 1612-PS will be Prosecution Exhibit 213. This is a letter from Rudolf Brandt to a series of people, the first copy being sent to Dr. Rascher; the second copy is noted as illegible; the third is the Medical Office in the SS-Fuehrungshauptamt, that is, the Operational Headquarters of the SS; the fourth was sent to the defendant Pohl; the fifth to the Ahnenerbe Society.
The attached order begins on Page 106 and is a letter by Himmler to the various offices I have mentioned concerning the experiments to be carried out by Dr. Rascher in Dachau. In Paragraph 1 it states that low pressure chamber experiments are to be continued. Paragraph 2 concerns warming experiments after freezing. Number 3 is concerned with the same thing. Number 4 is about the dry freezing experiments. Paragraph 5 reads: "The procurement of the apparatus needed for all the experiments should be discussed in detail with the offices of the Reichsarzt-SS, of the SS Main Office for Economics and Administration and with the Ahnenerbe Society", which indicates that the WVHA and the defendant Pohl were consulted and assisted in procuring apparatus, funds, and other equipment to carry out the experiments by Dr. Rascher.
Document 1616-PS will be Prosecution Exhibit 214. This is a letter from Rascher to Himmler, dated 17 February 1943; and he attaches to this cover letter the report by Rascher on his freezing experiments where women were used to reward the experimental subjects.
THE PRESIDENT: We are familiar with this document.
MR. McHANEY: I simply call the Tribunal's attention to the fact that here Rascher suggested dry freezing experiments be arranged for in the concentration camp of Auschwitz because it has colder weather and more open space so that the screaming of the victims will not be noticed so much.
The next document I'd like to offer is on Page 121 of the Document Book, 1580-PS, which refers back to Rascher's suggestion that experiments be conducted in Auschwitz. A copy of this letter was directed to Pohl. This will be Prosecution Exhibit 215. Here Pohl is ordered to take the necessary steps to have the experiments conducted at Auschwitz. I go back now to Page 116 of the English Document Book, Document NO-538, which will be Prosecution Exhibit 216. This is the Sievers' diary for the year 1943; and I assume that the Tribunal is also familiar with this document. I would call your attention to the entry on the first page, 12 January 1943. It is about the middle of the page, opposite 1830 hours. "Item 1. SSUnterscharfuehrer Hamann and Mr. Wolter of the Economic and Administrative Department concerning procurement of apparati for Dr. Rascher's research," indicating that the WVHA was cooperating in securing apparatus for Rascher.
On the next page, 117, the entry for 28 January 1943 says: "Discussion in Dachau with SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl." These, of course, are entries by the defendant Sievers in the Medical Case and indicate a discussion with him by Pohl in Dachau in January 1943. Of course, Rascher's experiments were still continuing at that time. On Page 118 the entry for 26 March 1943, the second entry: "Concerning serum production, contact should be made with SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl." Then again under 29 March 1943: "Production of serum depends on SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl."
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give us again the first reference you made, Mr. McHaney?
MR. McHANEY: That was the 26th of March 1943, on Page 118, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: No, the first one. I think on the first page of the diary you mentioned one specifically.
MR. McHANEY: On Page 116 was the entry in the middle of the page opposite 1830 hours, "SS-Unterscharfuehrer Hamann." Do you find that?
MR. McHANEY: Then on the next page, on Page 117 -
THE PRESIDENT: I have the others.
MR. McHANEY: All right, fine. I think those are the only entries I wish to call the Tribunal's particular attention to. The last document in this book is on Page 123 and will be Prosecution Exhibit 217. That is Document NO-292. This is a letter from Rascher to Himmler, dated 4 April 1943, and indicates that -
DR. SEIDL: Dr. Seidl for the defendant Pohl. If I am correct, then this is Exhibit 216.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 216 is the Sievers' diary, NO-538.
MR. McHANEY: Sievers diary is 216, and this last document is 217, NO-292. This is simply a letter from Rascher to Himmler dated 4 April 1943 in which he states that by a stroke of luck they had a very severe freeze in Dachau and he was able to carry out dry freezing experiments there.
Does the Tribunal wish to adjourn at this time?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal No. 2 is again in session.
DR. RAVSCHENBACH: Dr. Ravschenbach for the defendants August Frank and Hans Loerner. The two witnesses produced by the Prosecution have both been used in order to identify several defendants. There is a possibility that the witnesses before they congregated here had seen the way in which the defendants are sitting in the Dock in the press. I, therefore, submit on behalf of August Frank and Hans Loerner that when witnesses will be produced in the future by the Prosecution, and when the Prosecution intends to ask the witness to act to identify the defendants, the defendants will sit in different order in the Dock.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, why didn't you ask the witnesses whether or not they had seen the picture that was in the paper?
DR. RAVSCHENBACH: I had no cause to do so with these witnesses so far as concerned me because they did not identify my defendants. I submit this proposition only as a precautionary measure for future cases when witnesses might be asked about my clients.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. McHANEY: I see no occasion to argue on the proposal just made by defendant counsel for Frank and Hans Loerner at this time. Frankly, the Prosecution produces no witness here without first having satisfied itself that the witness did not in fact be in a position to recognize one or the other of the defendants. The normal procedure, of course, in doing that is to exhibit to the witness a series of photographs which have no name or means of identification upon them, and ask them if they recognize any of those individuals. Of course, they could not possibly receive any assistance there as to the sitting arrangement in the Dock under that procedure, but, of course, if a witness wants to perjure himself and come in here with that intention, I suppose that he could look at the paper, and probably recognize the features, perhaps, well, might intend to pick out a glossy clear photograph of the same man, but those are things I submit must be covered by proper cross examination.
As probably to the re-shuffling of the Dock before a particular witness is called, it would be rather a cumbersome matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will cross the bridge when we come to it.
MR. McHANEY: Very well. The Prosecution would like at this time the indulgence of counsel as to a witness to be called to the stand, Dr. Lober. The Prosecution has not complied with the ruling of the Tribunal that defense counsel shall be given twenty-four hours advance notice. We did not anticipate that the testimony of the present witness would take such a short time.
THE INTERPRETER: Will you please repeat that please, the German interpreter did not get it.
MR. McHANEY: We did not anticipate that the testimony of the witness who was just on the witness stand, Dr. Abend, would take such a short time. Dr. Lober is here now and available to testify, and it would be most convenient if we could put him on at this time. His testimony will be substantially similar to that of Dr. Abend. In other words, it will be corroborative of what Dr. Abend has testified to with a few more details concerning the number of inmates in Ohrdruf. Both of the witnesses were inmates of Auschwitz, roughly, at the same time, as well as in Ohrdruf.
THE PRESIDENT: Has any defense counsel any objection to the Prosecution calling the witness, Dr. Lober, at this time?
DR. SEIDL: (For defendant Oswald Pohl) May it please the Court, I have no objection to the calling of this witness at this point, although the twenty-four hour rule has not been observed, but as the Prosecution themselves say, the second witness is to be interrogated on the same subject matter which has been testified to by Dr. Abend. From the cross examination of that witness by Defense Counsel, it became quite clear in how far the statements of this witness can be disputed. I therefore am of the opinion that this is a witness whose testimony will be cumulative, and I therefore ask the Court not to give way to this proposition because the examination of that witness will not produce anything different from what has been said by the first witness and by other documents in this trial.
THE PRESIDENT: Your objection, then, is not because the twenty-four hour rule has not been observed but because the testimony sought from this witness will be cumulative. The Prosecution advises that there will be other testimony offered by this witness which was not covered by the first witness, although there will be some duplication. Under those circumstances, leave to call the witness at this time is granted.
MR. MCHANEY: I ask therefore that the witness Lauber be summoned to the stand.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. McHaney, we have just been given two documents which are not in the document book. Let's straighten out the exhibit numbers on them.
They are in Document Book 5 and on the fourth page of the index. The memorandum attached to them says that they follow documents-It should read 1166 and 2341, that these documents are numbered 2146 and 1235, N.O. Where shall we put them in the document book?
MR. MCHANEY: What are the new document numbers, if the Tribunal please?
THE PRESIDENT: 2146, 1235.
MR. MCHANEY: This is Document Book 5, is it not?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Oh, this is at Page 122. This is apparently a correction.
MR. MCHANEY:NO 2146, yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: And then it goes to Page 122 as Exhibit 143?
MR. MCHANEY: Well, I am not clear that it has been given an exhibit number.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: That is the number which now appears on Page 122.
MR. MCHANEY: 143--Yes, that will take Exhibit number 143.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the first one.
MR. MCHANEY: And is substituted for the document which was originally included in the book on Page 122.
THE PRESIDENT: The other one is at Page 150, where the same situation prevails -- Exhibit 149. This new document will take the place of the one that is now in the book?
MR. MCHANEY: I think that is exactly the same situation, two different documents with the same number.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Mr. McHaney, I had already received one to substitute in there, to be marked 2146 and substituted at Page 122.
MR. MCHANEY: Mr. Hart advises me that he passed out the new insertion yesterday, and apparently you have received a new distribution from the document room.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: But this is different.
THE PRESIDENT: The document we got this morning is not the same as the one that was substituted yesterday. One is a letter from Wagner, and the other is a Liebehenschel letter, the one of this morning.
MR. MCHANEY: Well, Your Honor, I am not familiar with this book, and we'll just have to straighten it out over the noon recess. I don't know whether we now have three documents with the same number or only two. The one which should go in the record, as I understand it, is the document dated 5 May 1941, concerning the delivery of gold and rare metals.
Now, then, that is the loose document which was handed to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: This morning, just now.
MR. MCHANEY: Very well, and the one now in the book on Page 150 concerning itself with Polish and Lithuanian clerical workers in the camp is dated 21 April 1942; is that correct?
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 149, which is page 150, is exactly the same as the one which has just been handed up.
MR. MCHANEY: Well, if so, there is no difficulty.
THE PRESIDENT: That's right.
MR. MCHANEY: Because that probably means, since there were two different documents carrying the same number, that they put one document in your book and another one in our English book.
THE PRESIDENT: All right; now, on Page 150, Exhibit 149-
MR. MCHANEY: That is not Exhibit 149. Our Exhibit 149 is listed as NO 390, Page 151, and I do not think that -
THE PRESIDENT: That is this one; that's right.
MR. MCHANEY: I do not think that any NO 1235 has been offered or has taken an exhibit number.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, it has an exhibit number. The number 149 was reserved for it until a corrected copy could be supplied, and now we have that.
MR. MCHANEY: What exhibit number does Your Honor have for the following document, NO 390?
JUDGE PHILLIPS: I have 1235, blank
MR. MCHANEY: Now we can give this a new number right now. We can call it 149-A or give it the next number in sequence.
THE PRESIDENT: Give it 149-A. All right, that is enough time on that.