Q: Do I understand you to say that this artificial interpolation of the WVHA into the second-hand material business in Lublin with the German individual firms had two reasons: 1. Globocnik would obey only a very high agency and 2. That you received an increased allocation of raw materials in this manner.
How did Kersten handle these things -- from Lublin or did it go through some camp or some warehouse?
A: These deliveries came direct from Lublin to the warehouse appointed by the Reichs Minister of Economics without any intermediary stops.
Q: In these reports we find under paragraph F, bedding material, blankets, and so forth. Did you assume that the bedding material, for instance, had originated from concentration camp inmates?
A: You probably mean the feathers, not the bedding material.
Q: Where did you think feathers for beds came from. It is even more difficult to understand how feathers for pillows come from concentration camp inmates.
A: These immense quantities of feathers reinforced me in my opinion that these goods came from big warehouses which had been confiscated and I still believe that in this case we were concerned with warehouses and not things taken away from inmates.
Q: This order does not say it concerns Action Reinhardt, but it says it concerns the use of property on the occasion of the resettlement and deportation of Jews. What did you understand by resettlement and deportation?
A: At that time it was widely known that the Jews were to be deported to the East. How I pictured it was that in accordance with the various laws of the Reich superfluous properties and large warehouses and hoards were to be confiscated, the possession of which was blamed on the Jews by our propaganda.
Q: The prosecution have submitted documents in Book V on page 162, NO-606, Exhibit 151, Document Book 5, page 162. These are teletype letters signed by Brandt -- SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Brandt -- of Himmler's staff, and orders are given there, that working clothes, shoes, etc., are to be sent to racial Germans. Did you know anything about these orders of Himmler?
A: I said before that the WVHA received a few of these orders. Most of them, however, were addressed to Lublin direct by Himmler.
Q: Did you think that these instructions were justified in view of the situation of the racial Germans? What sort of people were they?
A: The racial Germans were people who had returned as persons of German blood from Russia, Rumania, and so forth, since these textiles were there I thought it was fully justified that these racial Germans should be equipped with these things, especially as these items of clothing were paid for by the agency for Racial Germans living abroad.
Q: How this second hand material did not only come from Lublin, but also from Auschwitz. Do you recall anything as to whether the Lublin or Auschwitz goods were bigger from a point of view of quantity?
A: As I remember it today, the Auschwitz lots were far less important than the ones from Lublin. After studying the files I am bound to assume that the biggest part of the material was used immediately for the needs of the concentration camps in Auschwitz and therefore only smaller quantities would reach the Reichministry of Economics.
Q: Did you form an impression at all where the Auschwitz material might come from?
A: What I thought at the time was that Auschwitz was a collecting center for the Jews who were being deported and that their superfluous baggage would be retained. We saw it after the war in the same way, when the Germans who had been deported from occupied Polish territories and Sudetenland only were allowed to carry a negligible part of their belongings and that was the way I imagined this to have been done.
Q Now, to talk about Document 1257 which is in Book 18, pages 137 and 138. This is on page 128 in the English Document Book. This document is subdivided into several parts; and I want to use the last letter of this document, on page 128 of the English version. The last letter is addressed by Himmler to SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Krueger. There Himmler says, on 15 January 1943, having been to Warsaw, quoting briefly: "When I visited Warsaw, I also inspected the warehouses where Jewish property was housed." I shall skip a few paragraphs and read on the next page the last two paragraphs:
"In Warsaw a very nice and personable administrative leader of the Cavalry Brigade helped me to put things in order. He was not really officially employed there, but SS Oberfuehrer von Sammern very sensibly had called him in to assist him. I would like to ask Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl to clear these things up down to the last detail and to get them in order because the utmost exactitude saves us a lot of trouble later on."
Did you know that document at the time?
A No, I did not see that document at the time.
Q Having read it now, is it your impression that the idea was to establish order?
A Yes. Himmler insisted that things should be kept on an orderly basis down to the last detail.
Q That would, I presume, include accounting, would it not?
A Yes.
Q Therefore I should like to turn to the first pages of this document. Do you have the document in front of you?
A Yes.
Q It is a report signed by Pohl; and in the left-hand corner at the bottom there are Kersten's initials. He was a SS Hauptsturmfuehrer. To that document there is attached an account of textile material, second-hand textile material, which is to be sent either to the Reich Ministry of Economics or the Liaison Office for Racial Germans living abroad or any other agency.
How was this document put together? Do you know it from that time?
A I can not recall this document nor can I say whether I saw it or not; but it was drawn up in my office group. I assume that when the document you mentioned first reached us, that is, Himmler's letter to Krueger and Pohl, this was the cause for Pohl to make a list in order to inform the Reichsfuehrer about the quantity of the material sent on by us.
Q Can you in that document see any indication of Action Reinhardt or any other similar material?
A No. The entire document does not contain that term for the simple reason that term was not very familiar to us at the time.
Q Did you see anything in the accounting about an Account Reinhardt at the time?
AAs far as the whole of the financial handling of this action is concerned, I had nothing to do with it.
Q Do you recall that Globocnik was transferred away from Lublin?
A I recall that, and I know that this transfer of Globocnik was warmly approved of by all of us.
Q Were you working in your official capacity on the inheritance of Globocnik in Lublin? Did you try to sort things out?
A No, I had nothing to do with that; and I had no orders to do so.
Q But meanwhile I suppose you saw the documents of the Prosecution in which Globocnik makes his accounts and tries to get assistance? I am now referring to documents from Document Book XIX where it is stated, "Trieste, 5th January 1944." How is it that Trieste appears on this?
A Globocnik had been transferred to Trieste.
Q He reported from there to whom?
A To Himmler.
Q Did that go through your office?
A I saw these reports for the first time here in Nurnberg, never before. I should like to add also that Globocnik in one of these documents speaks of 1900 wagons of textiles which were delivered to the Reich Ministry of Economics.
That figure can not be correct because I can not imagine that, in the course of 1943 when transportation was an extremely acute problem, another 1100 wagons would have come from Lublin. I think that would have been quite impossible. I should also like to recall the film which we saw about Maidanek Camp. In that film it was stated that large quantities of the textiles had been sent by the Gestapo to the Berlin Ploetzensee Prison. That prison was completely outside our competence; and this merely proves that Globocnik delivered things to other agencies as well and that they probably benefited from the 1900 wagons which are mentioned here.
Q. You wish to say, therefore, that from that document it can not be seen in any sense what went through your office on the basis of Kersten's actions?
A No, it can not be seen from that document, no.
Q This document is purely a final report from Globocnik from his point of view without taking your office into consideration?
A Yes.
DR. HAENSEL: I am thus leaving this complex. All I have to do now is to deal with one final chapter which will take up about one hour but which I would be disinclined to separate into two halves.
THE PRESIDENT: You would like to start in the morning?
DR. HAENSEL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Court will recess until tomorrow morning.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess until 0930 tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 19 June 1947 at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Oswald Pohl, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurenberg, Germany, on 19 June 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Robert M. Tome presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Take your seats, please. The Honorable, The Judges of Military Tribunal No. II. Military Tribunal No. II is now in session, God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
GEORG LOERNER - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
DR. HAENSEL: May it please the Tribunal I just want to quote quite briefly and to rectify the sources of this truth. "Don't blind the mouth to the ox who is thrashing". And that is in the Book of Moses 24/4 and I also quoted from first Timothy 15/18 and in the First Corinthians, 9/9. That means three times.
Q We will now pass to the last section of my questioning, which I announced under the heading, "What did you not do?" Is it permissible to enter such a question in a penal trial? Is it possible to become guilty by omitting to do something -- by not doing something?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Haensel, don't you think that is probably a question of law for the court to answer, rather than the witness?
DR. HAENSEL: No, if Your Honor please, by this question I only wanted to lead the witness to come to his own omissions and to say whether he himself has omitted something important. That's the question I wanted to ask him.
THE PRESIDENT: Don't you think still that the Court should determine that rather than the witness?
DR. HAENSEL: Whether he has become guilty, of course, that is for the court to decide, but whether or not he is convinced that he has omitted something that he could have done that, of course, is a question for the witness himself, isn't it? Perhaps I might ask him, did he fail to execute orders which were given to him.
THE PRESIDENT: That's all right.
DR. HAENSEL: Something in that line, at least.
Q Would you please explain to the Tribunal whether as a soldier, because after all you felt as a soldier, whether you executed the orders you were given or whether you can reproach yourself for failing to execute orders?
A I know that one becomes guilty if one doesn't do something which one ought to do, especially as a soldier, if one doesn't execute an order, but I am not conscious of any order which I received, which I didn't execute.
Q However, you are reproached with the fact that because you executed orders you became coresponsible in criminal acts. Do you know that it is a crime to execute such orders?
A I never consciously executed a criminal order and I never received an order which was directed against the life or the freedom of a human being, except in the First World War when I was a soldier in the front line, when I had to shoot, but otherwise I never had orders to execute people or to seize foreign property.
Q Well, let's deal with this question of foreign property for a minute. But it is doubtless, after all, that you had to deal with such property and that you had to know at least that it had been taken away from their owners against their will. I mean, after all, you must have known that much.
A There again I have to say "no." At least as far as the period of peace is concerned and the first two years of the War. Only when the lack of raw materials and food became so strong, only when our military defeats at Stalingrad took place and when the Americans landed in Morocco, and when Africa was lost. Then for the first time I received property for disposal which I had to suppose was looted property or confiscated property.
Q You spoke of seized property or confiscated property. In other words, you disposed of property which you yourself didn't seize, which, however, were seized by other agencies.
Could you account for such property which had been brought together, by violence and didn't you think of that at that time -- didn't you have doubts?
A Of course, I had doubts and I much rather wouldn't have had anything to do with these matters, which had not been yielded voluntarily by other people. However, the situation of our people at that time forced us to do it. In all fields we had bottle necks and especially in the fields of textiles. Our soldiers didn't have everything they needed. We had to take it as it came in and from where we could get them. At that time I assumed that the property had been seized by military necessity; at least, that was the way it was presented to us at that time and I had no possibility whatever to doubt that it was military necessity.
Q Witness, the military necessity, of course, is a conception which has a lot of legal importance. After all it's written in the Hague Convention. But this military necessity could only have conferred a right to submit all civilians who live in the State or in the field of power to the seizure of their property and not only the Jews. This special treatment of the Jews is the question involved here. What do you think of that?
A. Well, you are quite right, Doctor, but I am convinced too that the totalitarian state at that time did not only seize Jewish property, but also the property of the whole German people and put it into the service of the war, without any exceptions and used it for itself. The conscription made it a duty for every German to sacrifice his life for the war, and the war-effort law made the same with property. The savings which the Germans brought to the savings banks were used without restriction by the State for war. Clever methods were instituted with which the last reserves were dragged out of the people. I remember the various collections and drives, wool collections, the clothing collection, and whatever it was --. We were told and we heard all the time on the radio and in the newspapers that the Jews would not yield anything voluntarily and constantly one spoke of enormous hoards of stocks which had been found in the Ghettos. I at that time had no possibility to doubt these facts. I imagined that from absolute necessity of War these materials had to be seized whereever found and I had no possibility, as I said, to protest against this kind of warfare and take any position against it.
Q. But, if you had known in reality everything you know how, how much misery, and how much blood and tears was connected with part of these materials, what would you have done then?
A. I certainly wouldn't have taken any part in it. What I would have done in detail that of course is very difficult for me to explain today, but if I had known how much blood was on those clothes and things I certainly wouldn't have taken part. These goods which were placed at my disposal, constituted for me looted property, looted for military necessity.
Q. But let's take a more concrete question. Let's deal with a few documents which you have been charged with by the Prosecution. I now put to you Document NO-517, that is in Volume IV on page 46. It is Exhibit 86, Your Honors, Volume IV on page 46, in the German, that is, It is NO-517. It is on page 34 in the English text. This document is headed "Camp Regulations for Prisoners" and it is signed by Baier.
In the parenthesis you see "Pay Regulations" that means it is that part of the camp regulations that deals with pay, and according to this document the Hauptamt Chief, that is Pohl, ordered the co-defendant Baier to establish a camp regulation and at that time, as it is said here, the Oberfuehrer Loerner was to have a part in it. From the contents of the document it becomes apparent that the inmate pay in a general way was to be paid to the Reich. It is true that the man who signed this document after all had the express view-point that not all the money should go to the Reich. It is a question of pay here which should be left to the inmates and premiums and so on. Does such a document, Witness, and that is the reason why I put it to you, not point to the fact that you took a part in an inhuman exploitation of human beings who had been deprived of their liberty?
A. Doctor, this document is not chosen very well, because the Oberfuehrer Loerner mentioned here is my brother and not myself, but he didn't have any part in this task, according to his own testimony. But apart from that I myself knew too that the inmates received only a small fraction of the pay which was paid by the enterprises for them. These facts as to deprivation of freedom by order of the State or the forcing to work by order of the State which had been ordered by all the Reich agencies, these facts were known to me. The coercion to work, which after all had started long before the date of this document on the strength of the emergency of the State and which had been extended to all citizens of the Reich was common knowledge. I in my position had no possibility to do anything against this way of conducting warfare.
Q. Well, let's take some concrete cases. Document NO-1563 has been submitted and that is in Volume 14 on page 56 in the German text, Volume 14, as I said, and page 56 of the German text and it is Exhibit 302.
Your Honors. It is on page 59 in the English document book. NO-1563.
THE PRESIDENT: It is Exhibit 392?
DR. HAENSEL: Yes, 392. Your Honor.
Q: This is headed Final Conference on Balance Accounts. From that document it seems that you were to have taken part in the Balance Conference of Office W of June '44, that is 59 should be right, Your Honor. It is a conference on balance accounts of Office-W. According to your knowledge the combined enterprises, which were under Office-W belonged to such enterprises which employed inmate labor, and pay for this work was not channeled to the inmates but to other agencies, and these agencies had a profit for this work. Isn't that an inhumane way of treating the people?
A: In this respect I have to point out that in these conferences on balance accounts concerning inmate work there was no mention made of inmate labor. They were merely formal and very dry talks of the balance which had been established already, and only figures were submitted. But apart from that at that time I had the impression that as a consequence of the emergency existing among the German people, it was necessary to use every labor and to use it to its fullest extent. The most important at that time was that work was done that the production was being stepped up, because after all this was not a normal war any more, but a total war, and a total war which used the people to the last man and to the last woman. The money at that time was not very important any more. The only important thing was the raw material and the labor. The finances was a second rate question.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, do you think that total war involves using the last man and the last woman of other countries?
THE WITNESS: No, Your Honor, I don't think so.
Q: I suppose a nation can decide for itself whether to use the last man and the last woman and the last pfennig in waging war, that is its own business. The accusation here is that the men and women and money of other countries were used to wage total war for Germany. Do you see the difference?
A: Yes, Your Honor, I do see it.
Q: Do I understand you to mean that it is all right, or that it is justifiable for a nation to take anything from another country in order to wage war itself. You don't mean that?
A: Your Honor, I did not mean to say that, but what I meant to say was that only at that time it was presented to us as extreme necessity in war, to use the means of the other countries for the aims of warfare, too.
Q: You mean that the situation was desperate, and any means for conducting the war was justified?
A: Well, that was the way it was explained to us at that time.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q: Well, the idea of control of manpower that was explained to you at that time, too, was it that every human being had to work, and the State decides what the individual man had to work. Was it in this sense that it was explained to you at that time?
A: Yes, at that time, that is the way it was explained to us, and that propaganda was put to us again and again.
Q: In that case you must have dealt with economic questions too, must you not. In that respect kindly remember the document which has been put to you by the Prosecution, and it is Book No. 14 on page 42 of the German text, and it is No. 1287. In that you are mentioned as a participant in a meeting concerning the establishment of the iron foundry in the Volkswagenworks of Fallersleben?
A: I did not participate in this meeting. This is proved by the second part of this document, and is the report made by Dr. Hohberg concerning this meeting. That report was made on the same day when the meeting took place. The record made by Dr. Kammler one day from then, or a few days later. Dr. Hohberg, would certainly have listed me as a participant if I had actually participated. I only state this, not to try and make believe that I had no knowledge of the existence of the economic enterprises, I only want to say how the situation was. I do not deny that I had knowledge of the establishment of the economic enterprises, and I also knew that apart from the free workers inmate labor was also used in those enterprises.
But at that time neither from my inner conscience nor from my outward position had I the possibility to do anything against this way of directing the State or the warfare.
Q: Let's deal with this word of "conscience". Every human being assigned to work, or not whether he is a foreigner or a German, every human being has a claim to humane treatment and equal humane treatment, and there can not be any doubt, can there, that from what we have heard and seen here, that many human beings were treated inhumanely. Witness, what do you know about that?
A: Before coming to Nurnberg I knew nothing about the medical experiments being carried out, with malaria, or typhus, or high altitude, or whatever they were, and I did not know anything at all, either about the gas chambers, or the extermination of human beings. I knew nothing of Euthanasia, or 14-F-13, or of the Action Meerschaum, or of the Night and Fog prisoners, or whatever actions they were, I did not know anything neither of the systematic atrocities. It is true that I did hear of such acts which were supposed to have occurred in the camps, but again I heard that these abuses had been severely punished. From the fact that I did not know anything I had no possibility to take steps against the locking up of people in the camps in any manner at all, and I'll have to say to that, this system of locking people up in camps still exists today; it still exists in Russia and elsewhere.
Q: Tell me, did you know that in the socalled extermination camps human beings were killed on a very large scale for no other reason, as for instance, for being a Jew?
A: No, I don't know that. I did not take part in the gruppenfuehrer meeting at Posen, because at that time I was not a Gruppenfuehrer as yet. It is true that in 1944 I heard rumors, vague rumors concerning these things, but even at that time I did not believe them, and I rejected them as enemy propaganda.
I neither saw such chambers, let alone taken any part in such actions. I never knew anything about the activity of the so-called special task troops, the Einsatzgruppen of the RSHA.
Q: Witness, let's get back to the field, in which your work and your special interests were located, and that is food, one of these fields, food. It cannot be denied, can it, that people were going hungry and were starving to death in concentration camps. Did you know anything about it, and what did you do to prevent it?
A: I did not know that human beings were starving to death in the camps. As I said already in my statement yesterday, neither myself nor my office group were responsible for the food supply to the prisoners in the camps, but often were requested to help, we helped as far as the food emergency allowed it at all. I am of the opinion, however, that the main difficulties in this field started only in the period when the heavy air raids and military disorganization took place, and at that time it was true that help and assistance was no longer possible, for the simple reason that agencies were cut off from each other.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Let's go over to clothing, and let's go back a little earlier. You just spoke of the collapse, and I think it is quite clear that at that time the agencies did not work properly any longer. However, it has been put to .... from Volume V, Exhibit 148, Document NO 1530, Page 147 in the English Document Book, which would be 149 in the German document book. This is a report from Office D, dated 26 February 1943--1943, mind you. It is in Volume V; it is Page 147, Your Honor, but I see it on Page 143. Dated 26 February 1943, it refers to a circularized decree of your office B II, and it can be seen from the document that already at that time there had been difficulties in clothing because the camp clothing could not be secured properly and, therefore, the inmates were to wear civilian clothing which they had brought along. To that you must add Volume III, 116, document 2149. This document is an affidavit. I'm sorry; let's leave this document. I withdraw it, Your Honor. This is in February 1943 that you had already heard of what you just called a bottleneck in clothing. Therefore, you knew about those difficulties. What did you do about them?
A The difficulties in the field of textiles were existing for the German army and the German people from the very beginning, and they increased every year. After all, this is no secret. The war aims and the war plans of the Allies, after all, took into account that by the blockade of Germany from the raw material countries, the difficulties of the supplies would increase more and more. However, in spite of these difficulties, I did not just reckon that we would neglect clothing for the inmates in favor of clothing for the WaffenSS. No. My collaborators and I aimed and tried anything we had in our power to cope with the requirements and to procure whatever could humanly be procured. That, of course, the supply of concentration camps was influenced by the magnitude of this bottleneck, that is obvious, but we have done everything in order to copy with this emergency as far as possible, and this is also one of the reasons for the decree which is quoted in this document. Since the Office D refused Court No. II, Case No. 4.to issue the decree, we issued it in order to prevent these difficulties in this field from increasing.
It was not our fault that clothing for inmates was insufficient. That was the fault of the German raw material shortage.
Q If there was little clothing, would there not have been another way out; that is, to reduce the number of inmates?
A Well, that, of course, would have been the right way. Again and again I pointed out the difficulties of filling these concentration camps so much, but Himmler never listened to it. Concerning commitments and releases from the camps, the RSHA, after all, was the only one to decide, and here even Pohl and the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps could not do anything. Himmler and the RSHA did not let anybody interfere in this field.
Q Well, I think that the question is not sufficiently answered with this simple assertion. Will you please examine your mind again? What, in detail, can you say about reports to Himmler and about what you did and tried in this direction?
A Well, from 1942 on, when the raw material shortage really became serious and could be felt, I again and again submitted reports to Pohl, and Pohl handed them to Himmler. Here I must point to a document. That is the letter of Burger to me. This is Document NO 1990, and it is from Document Book III, Page 116 in the German text, and I am sorry that I don't know the English page number. It is Exhibit 73.
Q It is a letter of 15 August 1944.
A This letter is a request for inmate clothing made by Amtsgruppe D, and it is addressed to me. On the first page it shows the strength of the inmates and the new, incoming inmates. With reference to this document, I have to point out that this letter was, as we say, an ordered work. I wanted to get a document in my hands from Burger, on the strength of which I could first of all intercede with the Reich Ministry of Economy again and could then strengthen my position with Court No. II, Case No. 4.them in order to get a new allotment of raw material; secondly, to be able to point out to the Reichsfuehrer in detail the difficulties that existed.
Burger will certainly be able to confirm this fact. The new incoming inmates, as listed on the first page, certainly did not come into the camp, in reality, to that extent, but this very letter gave me the occasion to make a last report to Himmler, which Pohl handed to Himmler, and in which I stressed the emergency and shortage of clothing, and in which I requested that the new flood of prisoners coming in be stopped. As far as I remember today, I did not receive any answer at all to that letter.
In this connection, I would like to point to the testimony in the Buchenwald trial at Dachau, and that is the testimony of the English Lieutenant General by the name of Morris Southgate. He testified as a witness there, and he said that when he took over the camp of Buchenwald, he saw the supply stocks there in which were incredible amounts of clothing, food, and other utilities, which would have been sufficient not only to feed and re-equip the whole inmate crew of Buchenwald, but also a large part of the civilian population. Who gave the order that such stocks should be hoarded and not issued, that I do not know, but it does prove that there still were stocks, and that it was only the fault at the lower level agencies that these stocks were not issued to the men.
Q May I report to the Tribunal that I have requested of Lieutenant General Southgate an affidavit. He is in Paris, and I hope that we shall still receive the affidavit.
Here the question arises that if your proposals were not accepted and your urgings not heard, after all you should have resigned. Did you?
A But at that time we were in war time and I was under martial law, and insubordination would certainly have brought me the death sentence, and I did not want to desert.
Q Couldn't you have gotten an assignment at the front?
AAt the beginning of my testimony I stated already that in 1918 near Rancho I was injured; for long years I had a stiff leg and I was not at all in a state to be used at the front.
Q Therefore, I think you want to say that there was no other way for you but to stay in your position and keep things going and that is what you did -- your duty as well as you could in this frame work; is that what you mean to say?
A Well, if I may, I would like to add something. As I testified already I did not know anything of these terrible occurrences of which we now hear. Men and forces were working here which were more powerful than we men of the WVHA, and forces on which I had no influence whatsoever; with these men who killed in cold blood, I had nothing in common -except the fact that they were the same uniform as I did. However, I have to say that men like the camp commander, Wirth, of Treblinka, was not a member of the SS. The Tribunal has repeatedly expressed astonishment that most of the men who are said to be responsible for these crimes are dead. I don't think that is so surprising, because these men, after all, knew they were responsible, and they escaped from human judgment by suicide. I can assure the Tribunal that if I myself considered myself responsible for the unjustified death of one human being I would not be sitting here today. I did not consider the SS as a clan for the committing of crimes, secret crimes, but rather as an association, explaining how things run for its members, that is in a good sense; my idea, it was true, was that it demanded obedience and loyalty within the organization, that they had high ideals and views.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: A moment or two ago you mentioned a name which I did not catch, and you said of this man, who evidently had a provocative character, that he did not belong to the SS. Do I understand from that observation that you mean that no one in the SS could have done the things which this individual did?
A No, Your Honor, that is not what I meant to say.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Very well, that is sufficient. What was the name, by the way.
A Wirth -- W-i-r-t-h. Treblinka
DR. HAENSEL: Wirth is the camp commander of Treblinka. Treblinka was one of the extermination camps. Wirth is dead too. Dr. Morgen who has been repeatedly questioned as a witness knows the man from the SS; he saw these gas chambers and mass murders for the first time at the occasion of the investigation of corruption at Treblinka, and he even instituted, that is he wanted to institute proceedings against Wirth, upon which he received the immediate order by Hitler submitted to him by Wirth. By that order, issued by Hitler, not from Himmler, a duel started between Wirth and Morgen because Morgen wanted to investigate this man, and he succeeded to prove a few murders to him which had not been committed by order of Hitler, and upon that Himmler dropped him and sent him to Trieste. And there when Morgen chased him again in order to get him back, he was killed in some mysterious way. It is a very interesting question I have just pointed out because in the IMT trial these matters which were brought up in the manner they were, were a climax, because the witnesses to a large part were surprise witnesses.
BY JUDGE MUSMANNO:
Q Witness, another thing comes to my mind. You stated still further back that you had conversations with Himmler, and you said that Himmler would not listen to you. What representations had you made to him, to Himmler, which he wouldn't listen to?
A If your Honor please, I didn't say I talked with him; I said I made reports to Himmler which Pohl passed on to him. I didn't speak with him.
Q You didn't have conversations with Himmler personally?
A No, no.