I now come to the foreign exchange and the valuables which were meant for the Reichsbank. Were these objects turned over to you, or were they turned over to the defendant Pohl?
A. No; neither were they given to Pohl, nor did I receive them; as Pohl has already stated objects were turned over directly to Hauptsturmfuehrer Melmer who had been given special orders for the purpose and he was subordinated to Pohl personally in this matter. Hauptsturmfuehrer Melmer delivered these goods directly to the Reichsbank. As has been shown from the examination of Vogt the original receipts of the Reichsbank were listed in the books of the administration of Lublin. At least, that is what Vogt told me when I asked him about this matter here.
Q. Did you ever see such transports?
A. No, I have never seen them.
Q. Melmer, as chief of the Main Treasury, was in Office A-2, and, therefore, he was within your office group?
A. As head of the treasury, yes, but not in this capacity as the special commissioner for the delivery of foreign exchange.
Q. Do you know whether the valuables which were turned over to the Reichsbank became a deposit of the SS, or were these valuables finally turned over in this way to the Reich?
A. The following must be said in this respect in order to make it understandable. The Reichsbank took over these goods. This was not a deposit of the SS but these objects became the property of the Reichsbank without any further difficulty. Foreign exchange was immediately utilized by the Reichsbank. The countervalue for this foreign exchange was placed in a special account by the Reichsbank, with the Reich Main Treasury. As Pohl had already testified, this account was called Max Heiliger. That was a fictional name, and this account was an account of the Reich Ministry of Finance. The WVHA was not able to dispose over this account. I was only able to figure it out from the documents because in my affidavit I stated that this had been an account of the WVHA.
Q. Witness, are you referring to your affidavit which is contained in Document Book 1, which was submitted as Document 1576, Exhibit 4. Is that the document you are referring to? The affidavit of the 17th of January?
A. Yes.
Q. It is located on page 12 of the English Document Book 1.
A. My statements in this affidavit, as far as I can remember, is proof of the fact just how far I was actually removed from all these things. Otherwise I certainly would have mentioned the fact, and I would have mentioned that this foreign exchange had been transferred to this account Max Heiliger.
Q. From this account of the Reich Ministry of Finance, was credit also given to the German Economic Enterprises?
A. No, that came from account 1288 of the Reichsbank in BerlinSchoeneberg.
Q. Can you still remember this number so exactly?
A. Yes; I looked at this document very closely in the document book because this account, 1288, at Berlin Schoeneberg, was an account over which the WVHA could dispose.
Q. And this account was not the same as this account which was called Max Heiliger?
A. No. We must make a strict differentiation between the two accounts. In order to explain this matter to the Tribunal, may I again point out that the account 1288 was the account where the confiscated cash funds were transferred. These were amounts in the German Reichsmark. Undoubtedly it is true that from this account it could be seen just how much money arrived and was placed into the account. However, these amounts reached a figure which did not allow for the conclusion that this was the property of hundreds of thousands of persons.
Q. Did the Reich Ministry of Finance know of the delivery of funds to the Reichsbank?
A. Yes; it must have known it. It must have known it for two reasons. From the affidavit of the Vice-president Puhl of the Reichsbank, which is also contained in the documents here, it shows very clearly that Himmler discussed that matter with the Reich Minister of Finance.
Q. Witness, are you referring to Document 3944-PS, Exhibit 470?
A. Yes.
Q. It is located in Document Book 18, on page 104 of the German version, Your Honor. It is on page 81 of the English document book 18.
A. Yes, it is under paragraph 5.
A. Yes, it is under paragraph 5 where Vice-President Puhl states, "As far as the gold and jewelry are concerned ***k told me, who was the direct superior of Puhl, that Himmler and the Reichs Minister of Finance von Krosigk had reached an agreement according to which gold and similar objects were to be deposited on account owned by the State, and the amounts which had been gathered by the sale of these objects were to be credited to the Treasury of the State."
Q. From this last sentence you assume that the amounts were reached the Reich and, not to the SS?
A. Yes, very clearly. I cannot say with regard to the account, "Max Heiliger," just how this actually developed. I haven't the slightest idea what figure it reached. In my opinion, only officials can know that, who worked at the Reich Treasure, who administered this account.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you please explain again what went into Account 1288? You said confiscated funds. Will you explain what you mean by that?
WITNESS: I mean the cash funds which were taken away from prisoners who had been turned over to the concentration camps and all these funds were credited to this account. These were funds in Reichsmarks.
THE PRESIDENT: But that all came from inmates of concentration camps?
WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And not money that had been seized in the East and sent in to the WVHA?
WITNESS: No funds were seized in the East and turned over to the WVHA.
Q. Did the WVHA have any benefits from this entire action?
A. No.
Q. And the Economic Enterprises?
A. They would not have any benefits either. Are you perhaps referring to the fact that credit was granted, which was granted to the W-plants?
Q. Yes, that's what I am referring to.
A. A credit had been given to the W-plants which were the German Economic Enterprises. This credit was a credit which had been given by the Reich to the DWB.
Q. I shall refer to this credit later on. Witness, did you have anything to do at all with the conclusion of the Action Reinhardt?
A. No, as I have already explained, through my resignation on the 31st of August, 1943, I did not have anything further to do with this entire matter and I did not have any more contact with all these matters.
Q. And after that, you did not have any conception about the extent on the whole about the valuables as they are shown later on by the report of Globocnik?
A. No, I must except here only the cash funds, that is, the cash funds in Reichsmarks which were entered on this account 1288, I knew of these sums. These funds amounted, as far as I can recall, in the summer of 1943 to about 12,000,000 Marks. However, it could not be seen clearly just how much of this came from the Action Reinhardt, because in this Account 1288 all the funds in Reichsmarks were entered. They were entered there from all the concentration camps. All this money came from what the persons who had died left behind and who did not have any heirs to claim this money.
Q. Witness, insofar as you possessed many documents with regard to the Reinhardt Action, did you turn these documents and files over to your successor?
A. No, I did not have any documents on hand whatsoever. I believe that the Order of Lublin to which I referred an hour ago, that the original draft on the basis of which Document NO-724, that I had this order in my safe. Otherwise, I did not have any further documents and this safe was destroyed in an air attack in April 1943 and it was discovered later on, but it was red hot and all its contents had been completely charred and burned and also the personal files and matters amongst that.
Q. I am now coming to a different document which incriminates you, because you are alleged to have given this order. It is located in Document Book 5. It is Exhibit 153. It is Document 858-PS. It is on page 168 in the German Document Book and it is on Page 101 of the English text. According to this on the 7th of January, 1943, as Deputy for the Chief of the Main Office, you are alleged to have issued an order which regulates whatever is left behind for prisoners that have died, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did this regulation as to inheritances apply to all prisoners who died in the concentration camps?
A. Yes, this order about the property of deceased prisoners -- and I still consider it as a summary of a whole series of orders -- in this respect here we were not only concerned with inmates of concentration camp, but also we were concerned with certain inmates of the SS penal institutions. There were SS men who were imprisoned.
Q. What kind of penal institutions were they and where were they located?
A. From the distribution of this order that can be seen. Above all there was a prison camp at Danzig-Matzkau in this penal institution camp only SS prisoners were located who had committed some offense. As far as I know this same thing applied to the jail at Straubing. In the jail at Straubing, no concentration camp inmates were located.
Q. Therefore, is this a general order. It is a settlement of the inheritances and property of prisoners for all persons subjected to the orders of the SS, but who were not claimed. Can it be expressed in this way?
A. Yes, this is the way it can be expressed. The order was distributed completely open. It was not classified in any way.
Q. Was there not any reason to have it classified as secret?
A. No, if one considers the fact that has been stated here and aside from the fact that has been stated here that the property of the deceased Polish, Jewish and Soviet prisoners was not to be turned over to the relatives, but they were to be seized and confiscated.
Q. Why was this exception made?
A. This action is based on the decree of the RSHA which I have already mentioned once before, which again is based on a Reich law.
Q. Can you tell us what decree or what Reich law you were referring to when this law was issued?
A. It was the memorandum of the 17th of September, 1940. It was printed in the Reich Law Gazette Roman Numeral I on page 1270.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Your Honor, I shall submit this memorandum in the document book as evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, is it a defense exhibit?
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Yes, it will become a defense exhibit. I shall submit it, together with other documents, as soon as the documents are translated.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean later?
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Yes, later on.
THE PRESIDENT: While I have the microphone, it isn't clear to me what the witness said about his order of January 7, 1943, he has just been talking it. He said something about SS men who died in prison.
Q. Well, Witness, will you please explain it once more to His Honor?
A. Yes, Your Honor, I was referring to SS men who died while they were confined in penal institutions. This was a settlement as to the property of deceased prisoners in the concentration camps, as well as in the SS penal institutions.
THE PRESIDENT: What SS men were there in prison? You mean they were prisoners -- they were convicts?
WITNESS: They were SS men who had been sentenced by some court serving a more or less severe and long term in prison. They probably committed some crime or something of that sort. In Danzig-Matzkau, as far as I know, there were on the average about 300 SS prisoners. There may have been more and who, in part, had been sentenced because of cowardice before the enemy, because of thefts, or because they had committed immoral offenses and for these reasons they had been sentenced to serve a term in prison.
THE PRESIDENT: You neglected to designate this class of prisoners in drafting the order. You didn't say anything about SS men.
WITNESS: No, Your Honor, but that is shown by the distribution list. Otherwise there would not have been any reason for me to assume -- for this order to be distributed to these prisoners and penal institutions, because in the concentration camps there were the so-called troops who were there before them, who were billeted and treated in the same way as the remaining prisoners. These prisoners were on probation and would not have to be listed especially. They were included in this any way.
Q. Well, why did you except Polish, Jewish and Soviet prisoners?
A. By virtue of the law, Your Honor, which I had mentioned before, according to which the property of Poles, Jews and the very members of their families in the Soviet territories in the case of that law was to become the property of the reich.
Q. Well, about the French or Czech or Norwegian prisoners?
A. I am not so well informed about these laws, or about the confiscation of property belonging to members and inhabitants of the occupied territories. All Jews, of course, were excepted publicly, if they were there, and, because of the lack of documents, I have little information on that subject. However, by referring to the Reich Legal Gazettes, which surely must be in possession of the Prosecution, it could be checked, and all these facts could be determined, really.
Q. We are just talking about your order, this paper that you signed. You talk about "property of all deceased prisoners of war except Polish, Jewish and Soviets shall be distributed as directed in your order," and then you say, I didn't mean all prisoners of war, I just meant SS-men who were prisoners?
A. Your Honor, I believe that during the discussion here there was some misunderstanding. By this order I meant all prisoners who were at all located in concentration camps, or who were located in penal institutions of the SS who died there. It did not matter at all where it came from, and does not matter what nationality they were. In paragraph one, you will see Your Honor, that the property of the polish and Jewish property of these people was not allowed to be turned over to their heirs.
Now, today I assume that this order applied also, for example, to Norwegian prisoners and the property which was existing at the death of the prisoner. This could be turned over to his relatives in Norway.
Q. I understand that, yes, perfectly. Then the order does not apply entirely to SS-men who were in prison, but as to all prisoners except Polish, Jewish and Soviets?
A. Your Honor, this order first of all refers to all prisoners in penal institutions, the property of these prisoners. Only the property of the Jews, and of the Poles was not to be turned over to their relatives.
Q. And the Russians?
A. And the Russians, yes.
Q. Surely, now my misunderstanding came from your having said this order was to apply, as I thought, you said only to the SS prisoners. You did not mean that?
A. Your Honor, that was a misunderstanding.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, I think some misunderstanding may arise from the fact that the witness has said "Haeftlinge" and that it is being translated "prisoner." I think ordinarily that is translated as "Inmate" which may clear up the picture some. When he said "Haeftlinge" he is not talking about prisoners of war but inmates of concentration camps.
BY DR. RAUSCHENBACH:
Q. At the time when the Reich order was issued about the treatment of property of members and their relatives, or the inhabitants, at the time the order of the Polish State was discussed previously, in 1940, and at the time of the issuance of orders by the RSHA of 1941, did you concern yourself already at that time with these things, and did the WVHA exist at that time?
A. No, as I had already explained yesterday, and as I would like to say once more, the WVHA and its predecessor, had nothing to do whatever with the seizure or utilization of property which was owned by the Jews. It had nothing to do with it at all.
Q. I now come to the third document which was also signed by you. It is located in the English Document Book on page 135. This document is NO-2003, Exhibit No. 480, in Document Book 18. Witness, what was the reason for this letter which was sent to Himmler in 13 May 1943, which has been provided with your signature?
A. I can not give you the reason for it today. However, I assume that this is a notification addressed to Amtsgruppe-D, about how many watches were turned in, and how many of these watches were repaired.
Q. Well, the order referred to other objects?
A. Yes, it also referred to other objects. I have already previously stated that this letter is the first letter and the only letter which gives any notification of the amount as result of the action.
Q. In connection with Document 472, you have expressed just how you explain the origin of these watches. Will you please give us your point of view once more, even though this document shows very much in detail just what other objects were also included. Didn't it come to your attention particularly that 25,000 fountain pens and also been turned in, and 7,500 safety razors and so on. What did you think about that at the time?
A. Yes, of course, that drew my attention, and at the time sofar as I can remember I made inquiry about these of Amtsgruppe-D. Sofar as I can recall I was informed that they had many objects which had newly been produced in the factories, and for example, the supply of razor blades, and of razors.
Q. Witness, I believe the translation was read wrong to that question. You don't want to say that these razors blades were produced in the camps?
A. No, this was something which if had been provided for the camp could not be goods from the camp, because otherwise it could not be served to the post exchange. I explained by the fact that the watches and razors had been produced by hand which had been served in this way to the post exchange, but I believe that these razors must have been produced by the factories. It was also shown, for example, that these were new razors, and it is shown by the paragraph four-thousand new razors were distributed to the SS hospitals.
Q. How do you explain, for example, the existence of stamp collections?
A. In particular the stamp collections seem to prove the fact that this was not the property of the inmates, which they carried with them. I could not imagine that a man would be permitted to have, or would carry his stamp collection along with him, that would have been rather unusual.
Q. You could nut assume, for example, that an owner of this stamp collection had been killed in a camp?
A. I not only would not know but I can not even assume that the owner was in camp at all, that was rather unquestionable.
Q. Do you know what was then done with the things?
A. No, I did not see the reply to this letter; and, as is shown by the documents which the prosecution submitted subsequently in the examination of Pohl, I was able to see that the reply only arrived in November or December. This was the reply from the Reichsfuehrer.
However, I would like to make a statement with regard to the watches. I can remember that these watches, which were to be distributed to the Waffen SS, were not to be distributed without any charge being made for them. The units were suffering from an extreme lack of watches, and there was no reason whatsoever to just make a present of these watches to the men. I can still recall that we of the Waffen SS Administration even through of turning them over to the men against payment. It was well known that a soldier at the front had enough money at his disposal; he was not even able to spend his money and he would have liked very much to pay thirty or fifty marks if he had been able to purchase a watche with it.
Q. Witness, I believe that we are not so much interested in connection with this question as to whether the soldier was able to buy the watches, because the prisoners from whom the watches were taken certainly did not get any refunds for them.
A. No, of course not; they were taken away from the inmates.
Q. Witness, I now have several questions with regard to document NO-1567; this is Exhibit 8.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Just before you leave this last document, I want to ask one question of the witness. He assumed that many of these articles had been originally manufactured, but doesn't the title of the document itself indicate the origin of all the items? Because the subject of the letter is "Utilization of Stolen Jewish Articles", or something of that nature; I don't have the document directly before me.
BY JUDGE MUSMANNO:
Q. Didn't you know, witness, all the time, that these goods were taken from Jews? Your very letter indicates that in the subject heading.
A. It is the same title, the same expression which was used in the document of October 1942.
Q. Yes.
A. It is exactly the same expression.
Q. Yes.
A. I assume that this subject reference is used here because Himmler at that time ordered that in all orders of this nature this subject reference should be used. I have already stated that I could not explain to myself just what had caused the Reichsfuehrer to choose this expression However, it was an expression of camouflage which Himmler chose by himself, and which I had to use.
Q. But there was no doubt in your mind that these articles were taken from Jews, was there?
A. There was no doubt whatsoever about that.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Thank you.
BY DR. RAUSCHENBACH:
Q. In document book I we have Exhibit 8, which is document NO-1567. It is on page 31 of the English document book. This is affidavit by the defendant Vogt.
Is it correct, witness, as the defendant Pohl has stated, that the order for the examination of the local treasury at Lublin originated with Pohl?
A. Yes.
Q. When was this?
A. That must have been in June of 1943 when he issued the order to examine and audit the local treasury at Lublin.
Q. Was it unusual for a chief of a main chief office to order the audit and examination of a treasury?
A. Yes, it was very unusual. Something like this was only done when there was a suspicion of embezzlement or an irregularity.
Q. And you yourself sent Vogt to carry out the audit at Lublin?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you know that the real reason for the audit was the examination and audit of the Reinhardt account?
A. No, I did not know that before the audit was carried out. In order to explain this matter to the Tribunal I must say that the local treasury at Lublin was a treasury of the Reich, and that all troops and units of the Waffen SS which were stationed at Lublin and in the vicinity were provided with funds by this treasury. The man who was in charge of this treasury was, at the same time, used by Globocnik for his special orders, that is, the utilization of the property of Jews.
Q. When did you receive knowledge, in the audit which was carried out at Lublin, that it was the auditing of the Reinhardt treasury?
A. As I have already stated in my affidavit, I received this knowledge after Vogt returned. In June of 1943, when Vogt returned from Lublin, I knew that I would change my position; I was already prepared to turn over my office to somebody else, and I was ready to take over my new assignment. At that time I did not place any emphasis on it to ask Vogt about the exact results of the audit and examination. As far as I can recall, he gave me a short written report at the time in which he pointed out and hinted that no suspicion of embezzlement existed against the man in charge of the treasury, and that in this treasury he had discovered a special account in the name of Reinhardt which contained considerable amounts of foreign exchange which had passed through that account. However, I cannot recall exactly whether he told me that personally or whether it was contained in his report. When he submitted the report I had a conversation with him for several minutes. I turned the report itself over to Pohl. The report did not contain any exact and precise figures; I know that for certain.
Q. Therefore, it did not show any balance of the Reinhardt account?
A. No. As far as I can recall, Vogt told me at the time that within the short period of time in which he carried out the audit-- I believe he spent only one or two days at Lublin--he was unable to carry out an exact examination, and that he was going to have all the necessary documents sent to his office at Berlin.
I don't know if that was actually done.
Q. Didn't you, later on, ever see a balance of the objects which went to the treasury at Lublin during the Action Reinhardt?
A. No. As I have already explained, several weeks after the examination was carried out by Vogt I left the WVHA and had nothing further to do with all these matters, and I did not receive subsequent information about them. I don't know either to what extent Vogt continued the audit, if he continued it. As to whether he had the documents sent to his office afterwards or if they were sent to Pohl, I cannot make any statements about that from my own knowledge.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Your Honor, I intend to come to a new subject now, which will take some time, that is, the credit of RM 30,000,000 to the DWB. I think perhaps it would be appropriate to call a recess at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours)
AFTERNOON SESSION The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 6 June, 1947.)
AUGUST FRANK----Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, before your counsel starts again---you made a statement yesterday that I would like to ask one question about. You said I suppose the State has the right to protect itself against its enemies by locking them up. Do you remember that?
A. Yes, indeed, Your Honor; that was in connection with the basic establishment of concentration camps.
Q. That is right. Do you think the State has the right to lock up a person merely for a difference of opinion without a chance to be heard or to defend himself, and simply because some policeman thinks he is an enemy; and to keep him locked up for years?
A. No, Your Honor, I am not of that opinion. It is natural that if a man is sent to a concentration camp he has the right to know why he is being locked up, what he is being charged with, and how long he will stay locked up. That is something absolutely natural which I wanted to state here.
Q. And he also has the right to have some one prove he is an enemy, don't you think?
A. Why, of course.
Q. Not to simply have a policeman come up to him and say you are an enemy, go to the concentration camp.
A. No, Your Honor. I believe there exist many wrong ideas about us, generally speaking. For instance, my last rank was SS-Obergruppenfuehrer. I could arrest nobody on the street; I never did that in my life.
Q. You are assuming too much. I am just talking about the Gestapo plan, not the SS plan, as it was done here in Germany. Isn't it-
A. Your Honor, I believe that if the Gestapo ever arrested a man in the street, then there must have been some sort of a suspicion about him, that his activities were against the state, or he had a warrant of arrest against him.
Q. Well, you are right, that all there was, was a suspicion. We have had witnesses sitting where you are who were sent to concentration camps without hearing, without trial, merely because the Gestapo suspected them. Do you agree with that?
A. No, Your Honor, I don't. You see, let's not forget that thousands of inmates were released after it had been found out that they had been locked up without justification. There were several thousands of them.
Q. And while they were being proven innocent, they remained in prison.
A. No, if it was found out that they were not guilty and if they were not released, then there was some sort of mistake.
Q. That is exactly what I mean.
A. Your Honor, a few days ago I read in a British newspaper that Austria has again established concentration camps, and there is a sentence in which it is stated exactly that no trial is necessary, and that it is sufficient if it has been found out that the individual is an enemy of the state. In other words, exactly the same things we are being charged with.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, two wrongs don't make a right. It's just as wrong in Austria today as it was in Germany in 1940. You see, we Americans simply can't understand that sort of thing. In America, if a man was suspected and there is some reason to suspect him, he can be arrested. But immediately, he has a chance either to be heard or to be let out on bail, if you know what I mean--immediately. We don't throw men in prison and then take six months to find out that they are innocent. We have to prove that they are guilty first before they are sent to prison. That is why I am asking you these question because it's so difficult for us to understand that kind of philosophy.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I believe that. I have had associations which lasted for over 25 years with Americans and I know that it works the way as you told us in America. But, Your Honor, I don't believe that you can compare German conditions with American conditions. A fortunate and rich people like the American people does not have to follow the same procedure like the Germans. The German people in such a case had to use more forcible methods because at the time, the conditions were very hard and several mistakes were made. I shall admit that gladly. Maybe the system was wrong. I shall admit that, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. If we have persuaded you that the system was wrong, we have done a good deal. That is one of the things we wanted to do, to try to show you that individual rights and liberty are the most important things in the world.
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. That is quite a principle. I agree with that principle one hundred per cent. I admit that we committed horrible mistakes and that is the reason why we are paying for it today so heavily.
Q. Well, if I could just get 50 million other people to say what you have just said, I should be very happy. I am not going to plan to do that. That is a little bit larger task than I will undertake.
BY DR. RAUSCHENBACH: