Therefore it was Frank's duty to destroy those depots. By arrangement with Speer they both did not carry out the destruction. In the last paragraph he says:
"There is no doubt that Frank's order" - which is an order to his subordinate agencies not to destroy anything - "represented a complete disregard of the order for destruction of 19 March 1945. The warehouses of the Wehrmacht and those of the Labor Service and of the Organization Todt were at that time, as I was told, well stocked with supplies. One can assume with certainty that through this order by Frank large quantities of valuable commodities were preserved for the German people."
For the significance of this affidavit I should like to draw attention to Document No. 4. Document No. 4 is the excerpt from the verdict of the I.M.T. In that excerpt I state at the end, and this is an excerpt from the I.M.T. verdict concerning Albert Speer, "In mitigation it must be recognized that Speer's establishment of blocked industries did keep many laborers in their homes, and that in the closing stages of the war he was one of the few men who had the courage to tell Hitler that the war was lost and to take steps to prevent the senseless destruction of production facilities, both in occupied territories and in Germany."
If the Tribunal please, the same thing which was found by the I.M.T. in favor of Speer I shall venture to claim for August Frank in my final plea.
Document No. 11 is offered as Exhibit No. 11, which is an affidavit by Duerrfueld, who is one of the defendants in the I.G. Farben trial. I submit this affidavit only because the Prosecution in the course of this trial, without making detailed statements or offering detailed proof, mentioned the name of Frank in connection with a visit to the Buna-Work. By this affidavit I am making it clear that Frank never visited any of the Buna Works which employed prisoners, certainly not Auschwitz. In the last paragraph he says, "As a former director of the I.G. Farbenindustrie A.G., Auschwitz plant, I herewith confirm that I do not know anything about a visit of Herr Frank to the Auschwitz plant."
Document No. 12 I won't at all. In its place I shall offer another affidavit also by Kurt Becher, which will be part of my second document book.
Frank Document No. 13, which I shall offer as Exhibit No. 12, is an affidavit by the sister of Defendant Frank, who, as he told us in direct examination, married the Jew Rosenberger, in 1933. This brief statement reads as follows:
"The undersigned, Anni Rosenberg nee Frank, at present residing at Sterzing (province Bozen), Italy, states herewith under oath, that her brother, August Frank, had no objections to her marriage, contracted in 1933, with the Jew Philipp Rosenberg and always maintained family relations.
"Herr August Frank in 1939 made it possible for his Jewish brother in-law to flee to Italy and supported him and his family in every respect although, by doing so he himself ran the risk of having the greatest of troubles and endangering his position or even losing it."
Frank Document No. 14 will be Exhibit No. 13 and this is an affidavit by Max Stahl who describeds an incident when Kammler, of the WVHA persecuted him and Frank protected him against any further persecution, The last paragraph reads as follows?
"General Frank, in spite of the fact that he must have been aware of the difficulties facing him, in view of the vindictive and inferior character of the chief of the building office, General Kammler, positively took my part, and his interference was sufficiently successful in having the indictment for high treason and building economy sabotage withdrawn.
"The worst was planned against me and even if my life was not at stake, I was certainly saved from staying in a concentration camp for many years through the energetic interference of General Frank."
THE PRESIDENT: What has this to do with the indictment? This is an affidavit that Frank was kind to a man named Stahl.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: It is connected with the questions addressed to him in his examination of a general nature, whether he knew anything about, or what did he know about concentration camps, in particular about the manner in which people were committed to concentration camps and what had he done about it. This is an example to show that in cases where he had sufficient influence he prevented a man from being committed to a concentration camp.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then it is proof that he could have prevented people from being committed to concentration camps.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH(Counsel) for defendant Aug. Frank): I shall comment on this in my final plea, ans sum up my defense in this respect; I shall not submit anything else in this document book.
THE PRESIDENT: You would rather not discuss it just now.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: And then there are two more affidavits which also statements about his character. They deal with Frank's person, his way of thinking, and his character--although they do not refer to any special count in the indictment. This is an affidavit by a brother-inlaw, who is an American citizen. This affidavit, by a technical oversight, is in German document book byt has not been translated. I therefore, have to read the important passage in English.
THE PRESIDENT: We have an affidavit here from Albert Wegman, Frank's brother-in law
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Yes, it is Exhibit 14 and Document No.15.
THE PRESIDENT: We have it.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: No; the German document book has not got the German copy. I have it in English and, therefore, have to read it in English. The third paragraph.
"...He has never expressed racial or religious prejudices in any form, and the very fact that his own sister has a Jewish husbond and our mutual mother-in-law is a devout Catholic who always preferred to make his home her own would seem to bear out my belief that he has no such prejudices."
"I consider him utterly incapable of committing criminal, cruel or even unkind acts towards his fellow human beings."
The last document, No. 16, which is Exhibit No. 15, is a somewhat original and unusual document. It is a very simple letter. As this letter has been addressed to this Court and was passed on to me as Defense counsel, I believe that it is not without its probative value, and that shows how somebody hearing about this trail entirely spontaneously, believed he had something to say and contribute to Frank's defense.
This is a man who was a book seller in Berlin in 1939, who was visited there by Frank in civilian clothes. This book seller advised Frank at the time not to buy National Socialist books; after all, the book seller did not know he was talking to an SS-Obergruppenfuehrer. Frank did not do anything against this man, and later on he came back ans was always equally nice and kind to him.
This shows, in other words, that the defendant Frank did not react in a manner which one usually expected from a fanatical National-Socialist, and SS officer, especially the way foreigners would expect him to react.
This is the end of Document Book No.1 on Frank. Unfortunately, Document Book No 2 has not been translated yet. I would like, however, to make this suggestion.
Mr. President, if I could briefly talk about the original documents, it will take much less time than I spent on Document Book 1. Then the Prosecution, as soon as they are in possession of Document Book 2, may raise any objection they want, and the Tribunal would be in a position to read them. I should merely like to establish a connection between the books. My intentions is, in other words briefly to talk about the original documents which I have before me without the document books actually being ready yet.
MISS. JOHNSON: Your Honor, on behalf of the Prosecution I object to that procedure for the simple fact that counsel may find himself commenting at this time on documents which are not admissible.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if he comments on a document which is not received, the Tribunal will wipe out his comments from its memory. This might be a helpful way to give us a short survey of what he propose to offer.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: The first document of Document Book 2 which is Document 17 is an affidavit by Kurt Becher from whom there was an affidavit in Book 1, which I have abbreviated very considerably.
Becher, in this affidavit, says that Fank,when the Oppenheimer's breeding estate was purchase from a half-Jew, he prevented the whole thing from being carried out-rather, he prevented the owner from being swindled out of the money which was his. Against Himmler's wisher, he saw to it that Ippenheim was compensated in am entirely proper manner. He did that in his capacity as an official of the WVHA.
Document No.18 I am fot offering. It is an affidavit by Conrad Morgen, whom we have heard here on the witness stand. This has become superfluows after the cross examination.
The documents 19 through 23 are all of them concerned with the plan of the Prosecution connected with the establishment of the SS Administrative Office about which the in tress Kaindl was questioned. All these statements are made by people who drew the chart of the office, and they all state that they knew too little about the details. They are not in a position to confirm that concentration camp matters were part of the group budget, and that Kaindl, who is mentioned above, was in the administrative office beyond the year of 1936.
Document 24 will be a survey of financila hadlings in the WaffenSS, and the court will be able to see the manner which was observed within the Waffen SS when money was transferred or accounted.
Document 25 is an affidavit by a man called Ernst Ruff who was in a concentration camp. At the end of May, 1945, he worked in Bayrischzell, in the SS Berghaus, with a labor in the WVHA, but he happened to be there as a guest, and he happened to be also the senior SS officer. People addressed themselves to him when these labor detachments were ordered to the Tzrol. And Ruff says about that:
"At the end of May, 1945; I was working with a labor detachment in Bayrischzell in the SS Berghaus. As no food was available for the inmates anymore the transport detachments were ordered to transport the inmates to Tyrol.
Our experiences taught us that this would have meant certain death for all of us. Hauptsturmfuehrer Theate, in whose hospital we were working, reported this fact to Obergruppenfuehrer Frank who at that time was a guest at the SS Berghaus in Bayrischzell. Although this was far from being Frank's competence, but we was the only high SS officer present. In my presence Frank sent a telegram with the order that these transports should be stopped and the inmates, for reasons of humanity, should be handed over to the American Army. This was done and this was how Frank saved thousands of lives."
Once the document books are ready I shall submit these documents to the Secretary General with exhibit numbers, and the Prosecution will then be in a position to comment on them.
As Defense counsel for Hans Loerner, I am now submitting the document book of Hans Loerner. Should the Tribunal not have any English copies I have brought some along.
Document No. 1 is offered as Exhibit No. 1; and this is an affidavit by Wolfram Sievers, who was the business manager of the Ahnenerbe, and a defendant in the medial trial. Is is connected with document submitted by the Prosecution, 098 which is Exhibit 234 in Document Book 9; and Document 422, which is Exhibit 202 in Document Book 7. In document 098, Exhibit 234, these is the following note by Sievers:
"The financial means for the institute for military research will be paid from dunds of the Waffen SS, as ordered by the Reichfuehrer-SS and as already discussed in detail between SS Standertenfuehrer Loerner and me."
He makes the following statement about this remark in my affidavit.
"This discussion which I had with the former Ehief of Office A-1, "Budget" in the Main Economic and Administrative Office, Hans Loerner, was a conference which had been called by order of Himmler, dated 7 July 1942, Document NO 422; according to this order I was to get in with the Chief of the SS Main Economic and Administrative office about the expenses for the Institute for Military Scientific Research, which were to be paid from funds of the Waffen-SS he, in turn referred me to the Chief of Office A-1, Loerner.
During this conference with Loerner only financial matters were discussed, that is, which budget was to be charged with the current expenses, and which office was to pay possible wages. As the Appreciation for Research and Education, the Ahnenerbe society, registered, never obtained nor spent money of the Waffen SS and there being a Waffen SS budget with the Ahnenerbe accordingly the Chief of the Office A-1 "Budget" decided that the budges of the personal Stall of the Reichfuehrer-SS was to supply the necessary funds for the expenses of the Institute for Military Scientific Research."
"In view of the orders given, there was neither cause nor opportunity to talk about the type and the scientific execution of the task given to the institute with its seven departments, as neither I nor Loerner know anything about the details nor did we have the necessary preliminary specialized training fro that. In particular nothing was said during these conferences about the experiments carried out by the various departments of the institute."
The Prosecution have linked. Loerner with the inhumane experiments on the basis of this remark, which is part of Document 254. The following documents, Loerner 234 and 235, deal with Loerner's positions and activities within the WVHA. They point out that his activities were restricted to paying out wages within the regulations of the Party and the Waffen-SS, and general supply problems, and other purely technical matters of payment.
In Document No. 3, Exhibit No. 3, Horst Kukatsch, who has given the affidavit, says as follows:
"Although, after Eggert's departure, I got a look at the entire incoming mail of Office A-II, I can certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that I had no knowledge of the following: (a) internal concentration camp affairs, (b) matters concerning the utilization of Jewish property or the so-called "Reinhardt Action" respectively, (c) the granting of credit to the economic department, and (d) medical experiments on concentration camp inmates."
The affiant is the man who was in charge of the entire incoming mail of Hans Loerner's office. He is, therefore, in a position to say what Loerner could learn in this way.
In the Document No. 4, which is Exhibit No. 4, the last paragraph is particular importance, particularly from the point of view of relations between Amtsgruppen A and D. This is what it says:
"Amtsgruppe D had its own form specialist in Oranienburg who supervised the matter on his own competence. Whereas the first forms of the Waffen-SS were printed under contract by two printing firms (Mettin & Co., in, Berlin, and Wilhelm Franz Mayr, in Miesbach/ Upper Bavaria) the forms of Amtsgruppe D, as the only exception, were printed in the concentration camps."
Affidavits Loerner 6 and 7 deal exclusively with his character. Number 6 is the affidavit by Hans Menikheim, and it expresses that Loerner who was a client of his, and also and employee, never, from 1930 to 1934, expressed any racial hatred or fanatic sentiments of that type.
And the last affidavit, which is my last document, Hans Loerner No. 7, is a collective affidavit by the inhabitants of Lanzendorf, including the mayor, which is Hans Loerner's native town.
This affidavit, given by nine citizens of Lanzendorf and the mayor, states:
"The undersigned herewith certify that; the former SS-officer Hans Loerner is known to be a man of a quiet, respectable and honest character. He had a good disposition and was kind."
"His being a member of the SS never gave cause to any provocations."
May I point out here that these affidavits, this type of statement, are of a certain importance to me from the point of view of Count A. This brings me to the end of the submission of documents on behalf of Hans Loerner.
DR. HAENSEL (Counsel for Georg Loerner): May it please the Court, I have two document books for Georg Loerner which describe his own case. For the general problems I have submitted a trial brief. Another trial brief deals with the problem of the knowledge of the criminal aims in the sense of law 10, Articles 2, 1-D, together with the IMT verdict. This trial brief has been translated but has not yet been mimeographed and I shall put it at the Court's disposal as soon as the translations have been put before the Court. I am also preparing a summary of the international literature about the conspiracy problem, a problem about which the Court has already ruled. I have done so because Tribunal 3, where I also have the honor to represent a client, wished me to do so in order to put it at the court's disposal for the verdict. I hope that this extensive collection of quotations will be ready in good time, before the Tribunal will render its judgment.
What I can submit today is Document Book 1 on behalf of Georg Loerner. It is ready in English.
THE PRESIDENT: If you will just suspend a moment, Dr. Haensel, we are going to get our Defense document books.
I think we have yours already.
(Tribunal left bench)
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Haensel, you spoke about a trial brief on the conspiracy count, and Tribunal 3, you said, had said something to you. We didn't quite get that.
DR. HAENSEL: The position is this: I have spoken about the conspiracy problem from one point of view already, just conspiracy, inasmuch as it is based on Law 10, and inasmuch as it is not based on Law 10. That problem has been ruled upon by the Tribunals, but the Tribunals may perhaps take the opportunity in their verdict to comment once more on this legal problem, and may perhaps give a motivation for the ruling which has already been passed and for that purpose it might perhaps be of interest to collect all material from the international literature. That is what I am compiling and, in fact, I have compiled it already, and it is being prepared now.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it additional material to what you furnished in your argument before the Tribunals sitting together?
DR. HAENSEL: Yes, it is additional material, additional material.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, we understand now.
DR. HAENSEL: Exhibit No. 1 I have presented already when I examined Georg Loerner, I submitted Loerner Document No. 3.
As Exhibit No. 2 I offer Georg Loerner Document No. 5, on page 14 of the German and English texts, an affidavit by Heinrich Luehrs. Heinrich Luehrs is a man who lived in Georg Loerner's house and who was a daily companion of Loerner's hours of relaxation. One of our greatest poets, Goethe, once said, "Tell me" -I quote -- "Tell me who your friends are and I shall tell you who you are."
For a man nothing could be more decisive than the manner in which he behaves after office hours and how the things which have occurred during office hours reflect themselves in him.
I would have liked to call Heinrich Luehrs here on the witness stand, but this is a problem about which it might be worthwhile to say a few sentences. It was not possible because this man implored me on his bended knee practically not to call him as a witness here under any circumstances. He couldn't stand it. Unfortunately, in order to throw light not only on this matter, but on the whole of the Nurnberg conditions and particularly the SS, one would have to establish a bridge between the Tribunal and the simple man in the street, and this is enormously difficult. It is always the difficulty of the hierarchy, these rising scales of important personages, and as one cannot only talk about moods but one must also talk about facts, we will always be stopped by those who had the knowledge and those are the ones who are high up on top, but the simple people who only have a dim, confused knowledge of these things cannot be produced. Therefore, the picture of a large organization, such as the SS, given before this court must necessarily be not entirely correct because the lower spheres of the simple man are unknown there. Those who know something about it already belong to a different class. I did not succeed in the first trial in calling the simple man on the witness stand, because until they had been screened only the big ones remained and in the case of Luehrs, I did not succeed either.
I am finally convinced that had he appeared here on the witness stand, he would have stammered and the court would not have formed an impression either. Therefore, took the final refuge and received an affidavit from him and that affidavit I shall now offer as Exhibit 2.
I shall only quote one brief sentence on page 2.
"As far as I could observe, Georg Loerner's mode of life was unusually simple. When he was not sitting in his room, reading or working, he frequently played rummy with us or "Don't lose your temper." Politics were never discussed. When we sometimes out of curiosity tried to question him concerning events, because we believed that Georg Loerner was better informed than we were, we never got an answer, or else only evasive ones. I had the impression that he himself did not know any more than what could be gathered generally from the press and the radio."
As Exhibit No. 3, I should like to offer Document No. 10 on page 28. This is an affidavit by Dr. Krause, a manufacturer who was entirely outside the Party or SS and whose testimony concerning Loerner's character and conduct seemed to me particularly important for that reason. I do not wish to quote from it. I hope the document will take its effect, and it is Exhibit 3.
As Exhibit 4, I offer Document No. 1 on page 1. This is the first of a number of affidavits given by colleagues of Georg Loerner, who were not made part of this trial by the prosecution. There is, first of all, an affidavit by Sepp Lindthaler. He was competent for food supplies, and in his affidavit he says that his task in food supplies for the Waffen-SS was carried out by agreement with the OKH by certain firms.
As far as food supplies for concentration camps were concerned, Office Group B had nothing to do with it, nor did they decide on the food rations, but the Food Ministry did. This was Exhibit 4.
As Exhibit 5 I offer Document No. 2, which begins on page 4 of the document book. This is an affidavit by Friedrich Koeberlein. Koeberlein was charged with supplying equipment for billets. He is one of the men who, at a very early date, joined Georg Loerner's staff. He therefore is particularly able to give us the history of the development of these tasks and duties. It is concerned with equipment. About equipment for billets very little has been mentioned in this trial, unlike food and clothing. This was taken care of by Office B-III and Koeberlein describes its manner of work. It is very dry subject. Koeberlein gives all the details I do not wish to road from it, but I hope, I believe, it will complete the picture, and, this activity of B-III will be taken into consideration as part of. Office B of which Loerner was in charge.
As Exhibit 6, I offer Document No. 4, an affidavit by Alfred Tunger, which starts on page 12. Tunger is one of those men, who by virtue of the German Emergency Regulations was called up as a reinforcement for the police guards in a concentration camp. He has detailed knowledge of the food rations for inmates, and he can also testify that they were always decided by the civilian agencies, not by B and the troop depots under B.
DR. HAENSEL: My next exhibit will be No. 7. I offer the affidavit by Franz Waschkau on page 17. Waschkau has expert knowledge about the clothing problems. He also has expert knowledge of the clothing plant in Dachau, which was under B-II, and he knows also about how the clothing was distributed to the concentration camp inmates and that for the distribution in the camp the camp commandant and the administrative officer were solely responsible. The supervisory agency was D-IV, but not B-II. This affidavit tells a little story on pages 2A and 3. I shall quote here:
"A prisoner had found a letter of the donor in one of the articles of clothing which he had obtained in this manner, and had sent her a letter of thanks. She complained to the Party about it, because she had intended the article of clothing she had made for a soldier at the front, and not for a concentration camp inmate".
This shows that B took articles which were not earmarked for concentration camps and passed them on to Department D in order to increase their stocks. This also shows the ideas which the people had, namely, that it was not the innocent who were in the concentration camp, but the guilty ones.
As Exhibit 8, I wish to offer Document No. 7, which is an affidavit by Karl Bohmann on page 21. Bohmann is one of those people who had worked in the predecessor of the WVHA, namely the administrative office of the WAFFEN-SS. They were subdivided in Department I/1, for instance, and, during the case in chief, we have heard repeatedly of these various departments. Supply services were part of Department I/2. Bohmann worked for four years under Georg Loerner, and he reports about this in his affidavit.
As Exhibit No. 9, I shall offer the affidavit by Walter Heyer on page 24, who also worked in the supply service. This is an interesting affidavit because it mentions Professor Dr. Schenk and explains that although he formally operated under Amtsgruppe B he had to be placed somewhere. He never received orders from Georg Loerner, only from Pohl or Himmler directly.
As Exhibit No. 10, I shall offer Georg Loerner Document No. 9, which is an affidavit by Dr. Hermann Ertel as one of the people who knew all about the supply services and who also knows that the civilian sector was responsible for supplying concentrations camps and not the Waffen-SS or the Wehrmacht. He also knows that Loerner never gave orders as Pohl's formal deputy. I shall quote:
"Georg Loerner was a little nervous and preferred to wait until Pohl returned from his official trips, and in urgent cases he would ask for Pohl's decision by teletype or telephone."
Exhibit No. II will be Georg Loerner Document No. 11, an affidavit by Gustav Bachmann on page 31. Bachmann was in charge of a troop depot of the Waffen-SS, and from his affidavit it becomes clear what sort of a task the troop depot had to look after, one of those depots, in other words, the administration of which was one of Georg Loerner's most important tasks.
Exhibit No. 12 is concerned with the same subject matter and it is my document Georg Loerner No. 12. This is an affidavit by Fritz Mueller, he also knows all about the main supply depots and troop depots and gives interesting information about them.
As Exhibit No. 13 I shall offer Document No. 13, which is an affidavit by Andreas Weggel.
Andreas Weggel speaks in detail about his own knowledge from his own sphere of work, which was B-IV, about the supplies of second-hand material from the East. He says there, and I quote:
"As far as the Reinhardt Action is concerned, I have never heard anything before I was interrogated about it in Nurnberg." All work done by B-IV connected with the second-hand material from the East he regarded as something completely different from those things which later on were explained to us by different agencies as the Action Reinhardt.
Exhibit No. 14 will be Georg Loerner's Document No. 15, the last affidavit by Weggel. It may be found on page 40.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 14 was Document 14?
DR. HAENSEL: No, it is my document 15. I shall not offer Document 14. Document 14 is not necessary for my case. It will not be offered. My Document 15 will be exhibit 14 and this is the last affidavit given by Weggel. It deals with the main supply depots which he know as the man in charge of the main supply depot in Vienna.
The next document, Georg Loerner 16, I shall not offer because Dr. Rauschenbach has offered it on behalf of Frank. I need not offer it once more; it has been offered already.
And the last document in this book I shall offer as Exhibit 15, my Document Georg Loerner No. 17. This is a reprint of 13 regulations under the Reich Citizenship Law. I see that my colleagues have already offered important excerpts from the Justice Register, but not this particular one, which I shall therefore offer. I would like to, because of the sentence in paragraph 2 at the beginning, according to which the regulation concerning heirs was discussed on behalf on the Reich, in favor of the Reich, and I shall draw certain conclusions from this in my final speech for my defendant and that is why I wish to submit this memorandum now.
This is Document Bock 1 and this is the end.
THE PRESIDENT: He will take a recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. BELZER: Dr. Belzer for the defendant Karl Sommer. During he recess I have passed on an English copy of he document book with the following documents to the Tribunal:
JUDGE PHILLIPS: You just have one supplement?
DR. BELZER: No, I have two supplements which are completed up to now, and by he testimony and affidavit of Sommer I have turned in a third supplement for translation. Right now I can present the document book and two supplements. It is supplement I and Supplement II.
As Exhibit No. 1, dated 8 July 1947, in the examination of the defendant Pook, I have already submitted Sommer's Document No. 37, which is obtained in the Supplement No. II of the document book. It is the first document in Supplement No. II. This document was already discussed during that court session, and in order to identify the Blockloader Karl Sommer, it was at Neuengamme. I shall now read from the document book of Karl Sommer. Sommer's Document No. 1 is an affidavit of former SS-Standartenfuehrer Gerhard Maurer, 23 May 1947.
As Exhibit No. 2, and in paragraph 1, of this affidavit Maurer states just how he made the acquaintance of the defendant Sommer, and how Sommer came into the Office of D-II. In paragraph 2, Maurer tells us that Sommer was first of all a civilian employee in Office D-II, and later on by Maurer's suggestion he was conscripted into the Waffen-SS. In paragraph 3, I would like to make a correction in this third line here, instead of 17 January 1945, the date should read the 17 April 1945. On 15 January 1945 Maurer was sent to his unit, and on 17 April 1945, to return to Office Group-D.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute. What paragraph are you correcting?