THE MARSHAL: Take your seats. The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. HAENSEL (ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT GOERG LOERNER): Would you permit me to say a few short words? I would appreciate it if you would permit me to tell the Tribunal until the beginning of next week, if I could introduce a series of letters here in this Tribunal, which letters deal with a legal question. This question is whether according to Control Council Law No. 10 and according to the law of occupation a conspiracy can be prosecuted independently from other crimes, independent crimes, particularly of participation in violating the laws of war and the laws of humanity. This question has now come to a good point. During the trials against the jurists, the Justice Trial, I had an opportunity to make certain remarks and the result seems to be that this basic question will be a project for all these current trials and will be probably be dealt with on the 9th of this month and, in order to prepare these problems, I am privately working on compiling all these documents in a trial brief. Therefore, I would appreciate it, if you could possibly excuse me if I leave here and I would like to introduce that trial brief, which I believe should be ready by Monday for this Tribunal and it would also be officially announced how this problem will further develop, if you wanted to make this announcement.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Haensel, this question of conspiracy under the Ordinance and under the Control Law is one which will affect all of the Tribunals. I spoke to Judge Beals last night and it is being arranged that all Tribunals will sit together -- I am not sure of the date; I think it is the 12th of July, but I am not sure -- at which time the whole question will be argued by the defense and the prosecution and a uniform ruling will be laid down for the guidance of all the Tribunals so that there won't be any problem of one Tribunal going one way and another the other. Does that change your plan any?
DR. HAENSEL: No, I have planned the question and I merely don't believe you have to introduce me here, do you?
THE PRESIDENT: As I remember it, you are Dr. Haensel. Yes, we have missed you, but we haven't forgotten you.
DR. FRANZ EIRENSCHMALZ -- Resumed CROSS-EXAMINATION -- Continued BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, how that you had time during the recess to give some thought, perhaps, to the nature of the Oberland League, I ask you if you care to change your testimony any with regard to its criminal nature, or do you wish to stand on what you have already said?
A I have no reason whatsoever to change my answers concerning the Oberland.
Q You told us just before the recess that Brecht, who is listed on the chart, was under your supervision, is that correct, on Table 2?
A On Table 2 I can see that Dinkel was never subordinated to my Department V-V/C and also the Department V-V/D.
Q Dinkel? I am talking about Brecht. You gave a long discussion about Brecht and you said he was subordinated to you.
A Brecht was subordinated to me before somewhere else, that is, before we came to Dachau.
Q He was never subordinated to you in your position in the Verwaltungsamt SS?
A I was in the Verwaltungsamt SS Department first.
Q What was he subordinated to you in? Drawing these insignie that you were talking about? In what capacity was he subordinated to you?
AAs far as I can recall Brecht in 1935 came to my office as a civilian employee; if I am not very much mistaken, he was assigned to me by the Labor Office. In my office he dealt with a construction matter for the SS in Munich which was under my supervision and that construction matter had been completed at the time.
Q At what time?
A That was 1935 or 1936. I can't recall the exact date any more.
Q Go ahead.
AAnd then I transferred Brecht to the concentration camp kommandantur in Dachau. At the kommandantur of the concentration camp in Dachau, as far as I can recall there was a technical department which was subordinated to the camp engineer, Weiss. Brecht was transferred to that technical department and I can't recall that he even had his office in that technical department.
Q This technical department, the construction department in Dachau, was subordinate to the garrison administration in Dachau, wasn't it?
AAt that time there was no garrison administration at Dachau. He was subordinated to the concentration camp Kommandantur.
Q We are talking about the period of 1935 and 1936 right now; is that right?
A Yes, indeed. Yes, he was only transferred in 1936, I believe.
Q You say there was no garrison at Dachau at that time?
A I know of no garrison administration at Dachau at that time.
Q If you said there was yesterday, you were wrong. is that right?
A I can't recall having said anything about a garrison administration in Dachau yesterday.
Q This local construction technical organization in Dachau was subordinate to the Verwaltungsamt SS, was it not?
A I didn't understand the question. Would you repeat it please?
Q The local construction agency which you have just talked about where Brecht was working was under the Verwaltungsamt SS?
AAs far as I recall that construction department was not under the administrative office SS.
Q Where was it? First let me tell you this. If Karl says that it was under the Verwaltungsamt SS in his affidavit, does this change your testimony any?
A Just as little as I can recall the exact conditions at the time-and that is twelve years ago--I doubt very much if Karl himself could possibly recall all those things to such an extent that he could possibly testify here under oath by making binding statements. I have already said before that in Dachau every four weeks there would be a change in the authority with the administrative offices. One man was transferred there one time, and a little while afterwards he was transferred somewhere else. If one of these construction managers was no longer liked, then he was transferred or subordinated to me for fourteen days or three weeks, and after four weeks again the whole thing-
Q It's not necessary to repeat all of that every time you answer a question. Where was Brecht subordinate? To what organization when he was working on a concentration camp?
AAs far as I can recall he was subordinated to the Commander.
Q In turn to the Inspectorate? Is that your theory?
A I don't know if the agency was at the Inspectorate at the time. I couldn't tell you that now.
Q You don't think possibly it was under Eicke? Isn't that what you told us yesterday? You told us it wasn't under the Verwaltungsamt; it was under Eicke?
A I said that the concentration camp construction management was under Eicke, by stating however, that Dachau had a special position with reference to the question of property there.
Q Now, Karl says in his affidavit that when he came to Dachau the 1st of November 1933 he relieved Eicke of Eicke's responsibility for building matters in Dachau. Would that help your recollection any?
A I have already stated that I can't give you any information about the time 1933-1934 because I was not in the administrative office SS at the time.
Q He says that he continued to be the chief construction officer from that time, 1st November 1933, on, until the reorganization at a much later date, around 1938. Would that help your recollection any, that he relieved Eicke's responsibility completely and that he was the chief of constructions matters at Dachau?
A I didn't quite get the whole connection of the question. However, I don't believe that it was just stated as I need mentioned it before, yesterday.
Q Just to leave this subject with one last question, it is your testimony, is it, that Brecht made no reports to you, was not subordinate to you in any way in his activities in the concentration camp at Dachau?
A I can't recall such a subordination in Dachau. I have already pointed out that with reference to the constructional police questions, I took care of those matters of the NSDAP; and I also supervised certain things. But I can recall that all the construction measures themselves were dealt with by the Kommandantur, and I didn't pursue the whole question because through my activity with the special task group I was not in a position to do so.
Q You said yesterday with regard to Dachau, and I quote: "As the commissioner for the NSDAP, I had to exercise the supervision with regard to the establishment of buildings in conformity with building laws in Dachau," and you said that you inspected the Dachau camp three or four times while it was being enlarged. Do you stick to that statement?
A Yes, indeed I stick to that statement.
Q And you did that? You carried out hose functions as an officer in the Verwaltungsamt?
A Yes, indeed, as a deputy of the Reich treasury, of the Reich Exchequer. The whole territory had been left to the SS by the NSDAP for their own use, and the owner was the NSDAP.
DR. VON STEIN: The prosecutor has just now stated that there is an affidavit here, and on the basis of that affidavit this defendant has answered questions. I have no knowledge of such an affidavit and I haven't seen such an affidavit so far. I should like to take the liberty of asking you a question as to whether this affidavit will actually be introduced as an affidavit.
MR. ROBBINS: I was just about to distribute the affidavit. I have only three of four additional questions on this complex with regard to the affidavit; and I'll give you a copy right now.
Q Would you turn very briefly to Paragraph 17 of this affidavit, Witness? Karl says that the construction service was taken away from Main Department V IV and an independent Department V V under Eirenschmalz was established.
That is in conformity with your testimony yesterday, although today you seem not to be able to remember it. He also says that in V V A this office, which is shown on Table 2 of his chart, was competent for the construction of Death Head formations and the construction of concentration camps. He says that examples of the construction activities were barracks for special duty troops, construction at Dachau concentration camp, and Buchenwald concentration camp. Can you either confirm or deny those statements?
A No, I absolutely deny those statements. I never did have anything to do with the construction of the concentration camp of Buchenwald.
Q You do not recall, as he says, that he was chief of Department V V B? You don't remember that? You don't remember that he was chief of V V B?
A I do not deny the possibility.
Q Just a moment. Look up at Paragraph 16, the last sentence in that paragraph. He says that building activities which were carried out under your Department V IV before the reorganization included maternity hospital for Lebensborn at Steinhoering in Upper Bavaria. Do you remember that? Then also the service buildings for Himmler and Gmund and accomodations for Himmler's employees. Do you remember any of that?
A Yes, indeed, I can recall that allright. I admit that I knew that the reconstruction of the maternity hospital in Steinhoering was known to me and that the Gmund on the Tegernsee was also under my supervision. As far as this building is concerned which was built for Himmler's employees, as far as I can recall, I really didn't work on that. I believe that they were independent; Karl was independent for those matters. However, I should like to point out that the construction manager for the Lebensbornheim was not Karl at the time. Maybe he was there after a short period of time, but-
Q He doesn't say that he was. He says that it was under V IV.
A Oh, yes, I'm sorry. I misunderstood you.
Q Now, glance down at the last sentence just before Paragraph 18. He says all of the departments chiefs were subordinated to Eiremsemalz' organization but dealt directly with Pohl, chief of the Verwaltungsamt SS regarding matters of fact. This organization existed until June 1938. Do you remember that is true?
A I'm sorry. I again didn't understand your question.
Q Read the last sentence in Paragraph 17, the one that proceeds immediately Paragraph 18. Is that correct? Do you see it? All department chiefs were subordinate to Eirenschmalz organizationally.
A I can't find the sentence. I have already pointed out that the chief of Department V/c, Dinkel, was not subordinated to me; and I have also pointed out that the chief of Department V/d, Dr. Fliehrm was not under my subordination either. In both cases the members of those departments were subordinated to the chief of the administration office directly. I have also stated that Karl was under my subordination for a very short period of time; but I can't give you exactly the precise date, nor at what time it was and what the ties were. There was a constant change.
Q Let me direct your attention just a moment to a statement you just made, that V/c was not under you, the garrison Dachau, except the concentration camp, referring to Table 2. You told us yesterday that the garrison Dachau was under your supervision. Don't you remember that?
A No, I didn't say that.
Q Karl also says that you were in addition to being chief of V V also chief of V V/a.
MR. ROBBINS: I might point out to the Court that on Table 2 there is a misprint. Immediately under V V there's the office V V/a. It reads V V/2. That is a typographical error.
THE PRESIDENT: The "2" should be an "a"?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes sir.
Q He says that in addition to being chief of V V you were chief of Department V V/a. You say you have no recollection about that? Is that right?
A I have stated that I was not chief of Main Department V but I was only in charge of Department V V/a.
Q Oh, you were in charge of V V/a?
A I can't recall the organization itself. However, after looking at the documents I can recall that there was a subordination and a subdivision at the time which, however, was carried out organizationally. But I didn't have these people under my subordination. I just can't recall about Karl now. However, I can tell for sure that Dinkel was never under my subordination nor was Fliehr. Fliehr was subordinated to me in Munich once upon a time when I had him as my collaborator in the Department V/a, and he carried out the planning for me, or, rather, the first planning for the Berghaus at Sudelfeld, whereupon he was transferred to Dachau. From there on he was no longer under my subordination. He was not under my subordination for the settlement even of Dachau. I did not even draw one single pencil line for the settlement.
Q Let's move on to another subject. Will you turn to Table 3, please, of Document NO-007. This document or table lists you under Frank as a construction referent. Is that correct?
A Yes, indeed, I was under Frank with the administrative office of the operational main office in the SS from 1940 to 1942.
Q This is correct for the period from 1940 to 1942; is that right?
A Yes, indeed, towards the end of 1939 or early in 1940 until the 31st of January, yes, 1942.
Q Looking at the part on the left side of the chart, that part under Pohl, can you confirm that this is correct?
A You mean the first little square or what?
Q No, the entire line under Pohl.
A I can't recall this subdivision by heart, and I can only look at those subdivided fields there in this document. At the time I didn't have too much to do with the Main Office Building or the Main Office Economics, and I didn't have any contact with them. Therefore, I can only recall the organizational chart of the Main Office Budget and Construction or Building from 1940 to 1942, I don't have any personal knowledge about those things.
Q You can't add anything to what you have already said? Now, will you look at Paragraph 15 of the affidavit of NO-4007? Karl says that it was planned for him to take over Office V V/a from you in the spring of 1938, and he says that you had started introducing him to the heads of construction works of the concentration camps "in order to make us acquainted with the new field of activities." Do you remember doing that?
A I can't recall any such thing. I have already pointed out that with the exception of the construction police at Dachau I had nothing to do with it, not the least to do with concentration camps.
Q Is the statement incorrect? Do you wish to say that it didn't happen, or that you don't remember its happening; that you took him around and introduced him to the construction managers of concentration camps; that you introduced him to Reidl, at that time chief of construction of Buchenwald? Do you recall doing that?
A No, I don't.
Q Do you say you didn't do it or you just don't remember doing it?
A I didn't get that question again.
Q Do you deny doing it, or do you simply state you do not remember?
A No, may I read over again this point Number 18 here?
Q It is the part about your introducing him to people connected with the camp.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, I am under the impression that the defendant Eirenschmalz is not in a position to read the whole document and to work on it in just a short time. If this affidavit is introduced as an exhibit, then I would appreciate it if I could reserve for myself the right either to call Karl here as a witness or then to introduce an additional affidavit by Karl.
MR. ROBBINS: I should like to state that I have only one or two additional questions on the affidavit and I am not asking him about the entire affidavit.
I just want to know if he remembers having introduced Karl to Riedl, and other construction chiefs of the concentration camp. As to Karl's being called here as a witness on cross examination, I should be very happy to have him called for cross examination; and I certainly welcome the opportunity of having that done.
THE PRESIDENT: Is he available?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: If you wish him for cross examination, he can be produced.
DR. VON STEIN: Yes, indeed, your Honor, I'd appreciate it if you could. However, your Honor, I should like to make a further request, that before I cross examine Karl here I should like to talk this thing over a little bit with my client here; and I want to be in a position then to ask the necessary questions of Karl.
THE PRESIDENT: There's no hurry about calling Karl. You may talk to your defendant as long as you like before you call Karl as a witness.
MR. ROBBINS: In our discussion about Karl yesterday I pointed out that he is writing up a complete history of the construction of the SS, the construction departments. He is working on additional affidavits; and as soon as they are ready, I will submit them. I thought that would be the best way to inform the Court and defense counsel of his views because the organization is very complicated and everyone can study the affidavits and then we can cross examine him on it and find out if he sticks to the story.
THE PRESIDENT: Whatever the time is that appears to be best Karl will be here for your examination, whenever you want him.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Have you read the part of the affidavit in Paragraph 18 about Riedl and the other concentration camp construction chiefs?
A I can't recall any such thing. It is absolutely unknown to me.
Q You state that you remember that it didn't happen or that you cannot remember whether it happened?
A I just can't recall all those things. I know nothing about them.
Q Will you turn to Paragraph 28? I believe you have already said that you knew that Karl was head of Construction Inspectorate South and subordinate to Office C V?
A Yes, that is correct. I said so.
Q Now, he says in a subsequent paragraph, 30, that "in this division Office C/6 Eirenschmalz had to approve of all maintenance and repair work for all finished buildings of the SS, such as barracks, concentration camps and schools of the Waffen SS." That's correct, isn't it; that conforms with what you said yesterday, just talking about the first sentence in Paragraph 30?
A I stated yesterday in detail the field of task of the maintenance department there and I have nothing to add really. Karl was the man in charge of everything, and what he did is not known to my agency. According to my opinion it appears in Paragraph 31 that the Construction Inspectorate took over the staff; and as far as providing the funds is concerned, which he took care of, I don't know how he did it; and I didn't really follow the whole matter because I had nothing to do with construction maintenance as of 1944.
Q Do I understand you to say that Paragraph 31 is correct?
A Paragraph 31 -- That is, if the funds were placed at our disposal for C-V for the repair work, I don't know. I presume that this was within the competence of the Construction Inspectorate, because those were sums which did not exceed the RM 100,000 margin.
Q I just have one last question on this affidavit. He says in the last sentence of Paragraph 30, upon his knowledge as Chief of Inspectorate, South, "If a concentration camp wanted to carry out any repair work, the camp office had to request the necessary repairs from Office C-VI in advance for the year and could only carry out the repairs during the current budget year after approval by Office C-VI."
A Those statements made by Karl refer to the situation and to the conditions during peace time. However, I stated yesterday explicitly that during war time there was an open budget in the administrative offices and that the administrative agencies therefore could act according to their own feeling and could carry out maintenance or repair work on those buildings and installations. Furthermore, I pointed out -
Q When you talk about peace time and war time, what years are you referring to? C-VI came into existence in 1942. What years are you talking about?
A Yes, I know that. Karl only speaks about the general procedure. C-VI existed only during war time. Therefore, funds were made available according to the open funds policy. Therefore, they could request all the repair work as it actually occurred, apparently. Part of the administrative leaders, as I pointed out yesterday, even after 1942 wanted to have permission to get from the fund, but I said that they were only a small part of these men and they did not have the right to receive the full funds.
Q Will you look at Table 4, the last chart in this affidavit? Can you confirm the correctness of this organizational chart? You see, he has a breakdown of Reich, South, Munich, Construction Inspectorate, because he was the chief of that office, and under Construction Inspectorate, Reich, South, which he says was subordinate in certain respects to Kiefer in C-II and to Eirenschmalz in C-VI -
A I don't know how the subordination was with reference to Kiefer and to the Construction Inspectorate.
Q Let's disregard that. With regard to the rest of the chart, is this correct?
A The subdivision of the Construction Inspectorate in Central Construction Management -- I can not give you any information about that because I do not know them. My connection with the Construction Inspectorate -- that is to say, my connection between Office VI to the Construction Inspectorate -- dealt only with the preliminary checking of the vouchers on construction. I received the completed vouchers by the Construction Inspectorate. They were sent to me. I audited the accounts. I placed them before the Court of Audits. The Court of Audits rechecked them, so to say, and the account came back to me with the signatures of the Court of Audits, and it went through the same channels back to the Construction Inspectorate. I had no further connection with the Construction Inspectorate. The Construction Inspectorate only received from me those particular orders when there were certain complaints or if changes had to be carried out in a treasury manner in the accounts, and they had to tell me that the corrections had been carried out. That was the entire connection with the Construction Inspectorate.
Q What was the only connection, either directly or indirectly?
A I don't know how you mean that "directly". What do you mean by that?
Q Is that the only connection, either directly or indirectly? Is that the only contact you had?
A I had no further connections with the Construction Inspectorate. However, in any case, I do not remember anything.
Q Did any of the reports or papers of any kind come from the Construction Inspectorate through any of the offices in Office Group C? Any of the other Amts in Amtsgruppe C to you?
A I shall point out that the way these various offices are stated under Amtsgruppe C could possibly lead to mistakes or misunderstandings, because they are really too close to each other. I did not have anything to do with Office I nor with Office II, nor Office III, nor did I have anything to do with Office IV, and as far as Office V is concerned, I had very little to do, if anything.
Q Tell us everything that you had to do with it.
A Sometimes I went to see the people in the raw material department of Office V, and I went to beg them for a little bit of something for one of my stocks. That was my only connection with Office C-V.
Q And are you telling us that you had no connection whatever with Office C-I -- no reports, no papers, nothing from Office C-I came into your hands?
A No, nothing came into my hands from Office C-I. I never went into those years; I did not go into those offices.
Q And that applies to Office C-i, C-II, C-III and C-IV?
A Yes, indeed.
Q But not to C-V?
A I never did go to Office C-V Personally. If I wanted to beg for something, I did it by telephone.
Q And no papers or reports of any kind went from your office to any of the other offices -- the reverse?
A No, I know nothing about it. I can not recall having had any connections with that. My reports from the audits, I mean, were sent to the chief of the office at certain periods of time, and I had nothing else to do with the other office chiefs.
Q That is a side point from the chart. Is the chart correct or not, disregarding the part about Kiefer and C-II?
A I can not take a decided position as to that because this is only a fraction of the entire organizational chart. Here you have the Construction Inspectorates also. However, they have no connection with each other, and they are all on the same line. I really would not like to say anything about this chart.
Q You recall the organization chart of Office C, which is in Document Book 2. Do you happen to have Document Book 2 before you?
A No.
Q Well, I think you remember it. It is NO 1288, and it sets out the subdivisions of your office. Do you recall that there was an Office C-VI-1-A, which was called Construction Maintenance within the range of the Inspectorate Reich, North, and then another one for Reich West, Reich South, Reich East, and the General Government?
A May I ask you to show me the organizational chart?
(Document submitted to the witness)
Q Just look very hurriedly to C-VI-1-A, 1-B, 1-C, and 1-D. These were the offices through which contacted the different Construction Inspectorates; is that right?
A No, that is a mistake. That subdivision applied to my internal authority, as far as the fields of tasks were concerned for the individual collaborators. As for the setting of the borders or margins, I was the one who set them up. As for a connection between my agency with reference to the construction and maintenance with the Construction Inspectorates, there was no such connection.
Q Do you know a person by the name of Otto Bestle, B-E-S-T-L-E?
A Yes, I know the name.
Q You remember that he was subordinated to Karl, do you not, in Dachau?
A I can not tell you for sure whether he was subordinated to Karl.
Q Do you know that he was the foreman at the Dachau garrison from 1933 to 1941? You should remember that. With certain interruptions.
A What the tasks were that he dealt with in Dachau I no longer recall.
Q Do you know that he was in 1941 chief of construction at Ravensbruck and held that position until 1944, in April?
A. Yes, I know that Bestle was in Ravensbruck as construction manager. However, I know nothing more precise about it. He was subordinate to the Construction Inspectorate, Reich North.
Q. And he had some contacts with you, didn't he?
A. Well, no, in general he didn't have any connection with me. I didn't know him personally, of course. Rather, there were connections as far as the preliminary checking was concerned of the accounts for the Construction Inspectorate.
Q. Do you remember having that connection with Bestle?
A. Not directly, I mean indirectly because my conferences concerning preliminary checks of accounts went through the Construction Inspectorate.
Q. You remember having correspondence with him about items of maintenance at Ravensbrueck, don't you?
A. No, I recall nothing of the sort, and I only corresponded with Ravensbrueck and with the garrison at Ravensbrueck, and not with Bestle directly. It was possible he would receive a copy once in a while for informational purposes, but I never did have a direct correspondence with him concerning construction and maintenance.
Q. You don't remember that in 1942 he requested material from you for the maintenance of the outer wall in Ravensbrueck concentration camp?
A. I can't recall that case. I didn't have to put any material at their disposal, because I didn't have any material, and the whole thing was with C-V exclusively.
Q. You don't remember that in 1942 he requested material from you for other repair work on the sewerage of the concentration camp at Ravensbrueck?
A. No, I can't recall any such thing, nor would I know what I was supposed to have had to do with him, because the garrison administration, at the utmost, through Amtsgruppe D for "Dog" was responsible for that. It is possible, of course, that he put his applications through Amtsgruppe D, and they transferred it to the garrison administration.
Q. Do you recall they came on to you?
A. I believe that I went to see Bestle in Ravensbrueck once upon a time, but I cannot recall the exact date. It is also possible that it was someone else, that Bestle probably had already left.
Q. You don't remember what you talked to him about?
A. I spoke with Bestle several times. He came to visit me in my agency as an old friend of mine from Munich. However, I cannot recall for sure whether I saw him in an official capacity at Ravensbrueck or not.
Q. Do you remember having any conversations with him at all about construction matters at Ravensbrueck or any other concentration camp?
A. Construction matters? As far as construction matters were concerned, it couldn't have been about that in 1942. Maybe I was speaking to him about preliminary checks of accounts. That is possible.
Q. Of the concentration camps?
A. I don't know if it concerned the concentration camp or not. It could have been the things in Dachau which I have stated before, where I received, or I had to deal with the corrections in the accounts which came in from the Court of Audits, and I don't believe that Bestle was responsible for that because at the time he had to clear those accounts with the representative of the Court of Audits.
Q. Now, you told us yesterday that there was a branch office of C-VI in Dachau, and this office had to supervise the supply depots there for water supply and heating facilities, is that right?
A. Yes, indeed, I stated that for the garrison administration at Dachau, not for the concentration camp.
Q. I am asking you if this branch office had any contact whatever with the concentration camp?
A. I can't state that. I don't believe so. However, I don't know if the garrison at Dachau had authority to issue orders. I only tried to set up this small department at Dachau, and particularly in order to supervise or control the heating system there, the distanceheating system.