Q. Do you have before you NO-2322? The 5th of March affidavit.
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Very well. About the middle of the third page, it will be the end of page 1 of the original, this statement appears: "During the time he was Kammler's deputy Eirenschmalz signed the official mail by order of Kammler." Now, that statement represents the truth, does it not? That's true.
A. Yes.
Q. All right, now, take the next sentence: "Since the foundation of the Economic and Administrative Main Office Eirenschmalz among other things was charged with granting subsidies for keeping up building operations of all building projects of the Waffen-SS, which also included the concentration camps." That's true?
A. By that I mean the task of approving the funds for the maintenance service of all of the construction of the Waffen-SS and therefore all of the concentration camps.
Q. Very well, the next sentence: "In this capacity he had to grant annual subsidies for keeping up the building operations and for repair work." That's generally correct, isn't it? Generally speaking, that's correct, is it not?
A. As an assumption, yes.
Q. Very well, the next sentence: "The bills obtained in the term for the annual payments were sent to him afterwards as vouchers."
A. Yes, to Office C-6; that's where they were sent to.
Q. All right, now, and this last sentence: "Eirenschmalz knew by the way of the bills which he had to examine when gas chambers or crematories or other concentration camp establishments were in need of repair." That's generally true also, is it?
A. As I said about that before, that was an assumption on my part because Eirenschmalz's agency had various people who dealt with those fields of tasks and everyone of those accounts - a large number of accounts couldn't all possibly be seen by Eirenschmalz.
Q. When you signed this affidavit, did you make any change in that particular sentence?
A. No, I didn't. I also added then that it was nothing but an assumption.
Q. On the affidavit?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you write that on the original affidavit?
A. Yes, according to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Q. Well, you didn't say it was an assumption. You didn't use the words "it is an assumption"?
A. Well, according to the best of my knowledge and belief is nothing but an assumption really. That's the way I understand it.
Q. That's the way most affidavits are signed. That's the only way you can sign anything, "according to the best of my knowledge and belief".
A. Yes, and at the time that was my best knowledge and belief.
Q. Do you know if someone asked me did I see you in this Court and I had to sign an affidavit to that effect it would be that way? According to the best of my knowledge and belief?
A. I didn't know that, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will recess, I regret to say, until tomorrow morning at nine o'clock.
(The Court adjourned until 0900 hours, 28 June 1947.)
Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Oswald Pohl, et al., defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 28 June 1947, 0930-1230, Justice Robert M. Toms, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Where were we? Weren't you cross examining him, Mr. Robbins?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, sir, Your Honor, and I have no further cross examination. I think defense counsel wants to recall the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to examine the witness further?
DR. von STEIN: Yes, sir, unless the Court thinks I am finished, without putting any further questions to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: If you can do without it we can. Just as you like about that. If you have no further questions we will excuse the witness.
DR. von STEIN: May I just put a few brief questions to him, and sum up his testimony.
BY DR. von STEIN:
Q. Witness, from your testimony yesterday, I do not think that a very clear picture has been received so far as you said, first of all, that your knowledge was not based on your own observation; 2, the period of time you anti-dated your statements, so to speak, I assume that you were speaking only about the period up to '38 and '39?
A. Yes.
Q. Therefore, your statements in your affidavit concerned only that period of time?
A. Yes, most of it, yes.
Q. When you say most of it I unhappily have to ask you once again what statements are concerned with '38 or '39 and what statements you reserved to a later to me?
A. From the questions put to me by the interrogating officer, a mistake arose of which I discovered only yesterday. For instance, I was asked by the interrogating officer how a crematorium and the gas chamber were built. When I answered that, I inspected such an installation for the first time when I was imprisoned in Dachau. He asked me to describe the organizational origin of any building to apply to the crematorium at Dachau. That is how this description was made, I did not think of any particular year, or period of time, nor did I think that was necessary.
Q. Let's proceed with the question. You are to describe how a crematorium was built?
A. Yes.
Q. Or gas chamber? How did you happen to have that knowledge?
A. From the order or regulation concerning the building or construction of same which was worked out by Office Group-C in the book.
Q. What was the name of the book?
A. I don't remember the title.
Q. When was the book published?
A. When the WVHA was established.
Q. How did the book reach you?
A. When the WVHA was established, and every agency of Office Group-C was sent a copy.
Q. Will you tell us what this book described about the building of a gas chamber and a crematorium?
A. It does not show anything about that. It speaks only about normal construction, such as building barracks, garage, or any other building for the troops. Any specific statements are not contained in that book, but I told the interrogating officer that I also described the origin of a normal building project for troops, and I applied that to the organizational origins of a crematorium. That was the result of the questions put to me by the interrogating officer.
Q. Do you know that when the crematorium was built, that was the same way as any other building. Please let me finish my sentence. Or was the building of a crematorium a secret matter?
A. I said about that, that the actual organizational origin of a crematorium was not sufficiently known to me to make statements under oath. I could only give my assumptions, as I myself had no contact with any such construction project.
Q. Then I want you to describe -- I want to talk about your description which you gave in your affidavit about the organizational process in Office Group-C. Was that correct?
A. I put that together from my memory, because I had no material at my disposal. I did it to the best of my belief and knowledge.
Q. But it can not be quite correct if you had your knowledge only from that book about the building project. Your statements about the building of a crematorium were not contained in the book, as you said yourself, but your statements, only about the building of crematoria in particular where you mentioned Office Group-D, and so far as Office Group-C, you were speaking of Offices 1, III and V. Was that an arbitrary list you gave from your own memory, or did you have any evidence and documents apart from that book?
A. I said already that I gave only as an example which I applied to the building of crematoria in that form of evidence which I was unable to apply, because I had no documents at my disposal. It was purely a reconstruction from memory.
Q What can you give us in the way of facts about Defendant Eirenschmalz?
A I am unable to say anything about Eirenschmalz.
Q But you did so in both your affidavits.
A That was simply because of the questions put to me by the interrogating officer.
Q I may say, therefore, that the contents of both your affidavits you now repudiate.
A By the statement, the differentiation between the various offices are now different in my mind than they were when the interrogation was put together.
Q Were you ever subordinated to Eirenschmalz?
A No.
Q But you said that in 1938 or 1939 you joined Eirenschmalz and that you were his subordinate. Is that statement incorrect?
A I was not immediately subordinate to him.
Q But you said so.
A Well, as far as I know, I said that I knew him from that time.
Q All your other statements concerning the alleged knowledge of Eirenschmalz from construction bills and things like that concerning the repair work of crematoria and gas chambers, do you maintain them?
A No, on the basis of yesterday's discussions I am unable to maintain these statements, as these statements were pure assumptions.
Q Your other statements concerning the bills which Eirenschmalz had, all about building maintenance, do you maintain those statements?
A Maintenance of buildings was in Eirenschmalz' charge.
Q What year are you talking about?
A Of the year since 1942.
Q And what do you base your statements on in this case?
A During my activity I had to draw up statements about maintenance of buildings for some administrative offices.
Q Where were you then?
A In Middle East.
Q How is it you know what tasks and duties Eirenschmalz had to carry out with the WVHA?
A I know that from the organizational chart. You could see it from there and the interrogating officer showed me the organizational chart when I was interrogated at the time and from there I could see what Eirenschmalz was doing concerning the maintenance side.
Q The only evidence, therefore, on which you base your statement was this organizational chart?
AAnd my experiences which I gathered in Berlin when I made my trips to Berlin.
Q With whom did you confer when you went to Berlin?
A Several building inspectors and the various Main Office chiefs and we conferred together.
Q Did you ever talk to Eirenschmalz about maintenance when you made your trips and when was that?
A I can not recall that I talked to him personally about the maintenance of buildings. I merely talked about bills and accounts of new construction.
Q Of new constructions?
A Yes.
Q But you made statements concerning definite repair work. You said, for instance, repair work on gas chambers and crematoria.
A Well, they were the words put into my mouth by the interrogating officer.
Q I would like to ask you, did you yourself have anything to do with gas chambers and crematoria when you were in Russia?
A No.
Q Therefore, you are not in a position to make any statements about that point.
A I said before that I gave my assumptions which arose from the questions put to me by the interrogating officer.
Q Who were you under when you were in Russia Middle?
A Immediately under Office Group C.
Q Were you under the SS Economist?
A Only as far as the disciplinary matters were concerned. In my actual work I was immediately under the Office Group Chief of Office Group C.
DR. VON STEIN: If the Tribunal please, I have no further questions.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, are you a graduate engineer?
A Yes.
Q How long have you been studying and practicing engineering?
A I studied for fourteen terms and I practiced before I joined the Waffen SS for six years.
Q And what was your highest rank in the SS which you attained?
A In the Waffen SS I was a Sturmbannfuehrer.
Q And how long were you connected with construction activities with the SS, for how many years?
A I don't understand.
Q For how many years were you connected with the construction activities of the SS?
A From February 1939 until the surrender.
Q From February 1939 until the surrender, is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Do you remember that your interrogating officer of both affidavits on the 20th of February and the 5th of March was Mr. Wolfe?
A Yes.
Q Was it the same Mr. Wolfe who was sitting at the prosecution table yesterday afternoon when you were testifying?
A Yes.
Q Were you under oath when you gave the testimony?
A Yes.
Q And were you telling the truth when you gave your testimony?
A To the best of my belief and knowledge.
MR. ROBBINS: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Robbins, I think yesterday you offered the original interrogation of this witness.
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, it's being processed, Your Honor.
DR. BELZER (Attorney for the Defendant Sommer): With the permission of the Tribunal I would like to open the case of Defendant Sommer.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute please. Let's finish with this witness. Do you want to examine this witness?
DR. BELZER: I am so sorry. I thought he had been removed.
THE PRESIDENT: No other questions of this witness?
DR. VON STEIN: One more question, please.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q Witness, did I talk to you ever before you came to this court?
A No, never.
THE PRESIDENT: This witness may be removed by the Marshal, please.
(The witness was excused.)
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Defendant Eirenschmalz wish to call any further witnesses? No?
DR. VON STEIN: If the Tribunal please, I have now come to the end of the defense on behalf of Eirenschmalz, but I have not completely finished. The prosecution submitted a new affidavit yesterday and announced that another affidavit is to follow. I can not completely rest my case. Also an affidavit has been submitted to me by the co-defendant Pohl. The offer of that affidavit was made when Defendant Pohl was no longer on the witness stand. I was therefore not in a position to put questions concerning this affidavit to Pohl. I would therefore like to reserve the right to speak about that affidavit at some future point. By permission of the court I would like to submit another affidavit, or, also, I should be glad to crossexamine that witness myself here.
THE PRESIDENT: You have no other witnesses at this time?
DR. VON STEIN: No, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: It is understood that you may offer further proof at a later time, if you wish.
DR. VON STEIN: Then I have one request. I would be grateful to see the affidavit by Bestle as soon as possible so that this matter can be dealt with as quickly as possible.
THE PRESIDENT: What affidavit is that, Mr. Robbins?
MR. ROBBINS: It is the affidavit that I said will be distributed today. I will give Counsel a copy immediately after the session. They don't seem to be here this morning.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be furnished as soon as it is ready?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, Your Honor.
DR. HOFFMANN (Attorney for the Defendant Scheide): If the Tribunal please, it is my intention to follow Scheide's case after the case of Defendant Pook. Now I have been told that this week the court will not meet on Thursday or Friday. I don't know whether this applies to this Court.
THE PRESIDENT: This Court will be in session on Thursday, but not on Friday and not on the following Monday, which is July 7, and we will be in session - this court will be in session Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of next week.
DR. HOFFMANN: In that case I would be grateful if Defendant Scheide in order to prepare his case would be excused on Tuesday next.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, if you wish.
Now, Sir.
DR. BELZER: I wanted to say just now that the main part of my evidence in the case of Sommer will be Sommer's interrogation as a witness on his own behalf. Before doing so, however, I would like to interrogate Witness Rammler. By the permission of the Tribunal I have two witnesses at my disposal on the same subject.
THE PRESIDENT: You wish Rammler now?
DR. BELZER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Marshal will bring the Witness Rammler to the witness stand.
GEORG MARTIN WILHELM RAMMLER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Please raise your right hand and repeat after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withheld and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE MUSMANNO: You may be seated.
DR. BELZER (for defendant Sommer): Before interrogating this witness I would like to inform the Court that I shall ask the witness about two subjects: First, I shall make reference to an affidavit submitted by the prosecution made out by that witness, and the second part will have reference with the statements made by Bielski on 14 April of this year.
BY DR. BELZER:
Q Witness, you please give us your full name?
A Rammler, Georg Martin Wilhelm.
MR. ROBBINS: I might inform the Court that the affidavit which counsel has just mentioned is Exhibit 136, in Document Book V, page 86 of the English.
THE TRIBUNAL: What is the other one?
MR. ROBBINS: That is only the affidavit.
BY DR. BELZER:
Q Witness, when and where were you born?
A On the 12th of September 1911, in Ansbach, Central Franconia.
Q When, and as what, did you join Office Group D of the WVHA?
A In September or October of 1941 I was transferred from my troop unit after an illness.
Q How long did you stay with Office Group D?
A Until the collapse in April 1945.
Q Did you obtain any insight into the activities of the various officers of that Office Group Amt?
A No.
A No.
Q Do you recall that in Office Group D-2 there were frequent, or even regular, office hours which went beyond the normal office time?
A I remember that very well. That happened very frequently that we worked beyond normal office hours.
Q Can you tell us today, still, why you remember that?
A Well, for instance, when the company was being trained, or when the NCO's and men were allocated to certain duties the clerks of the office Chiefs were given leave - they were not allotted to this work because they had to work overtime, anywhere.
Q Since when do you know Karl Sommer?
A Since the day he turned up in the Office Group.
Q Can you tell us, still, when that was - approximately?
A I suppose that it was in the spring or autumn of 1942, but I O don't remember the precise date.
Q Do you know what his position was in D-2?
A He was in charge of the Office, or he was a Department Chief.
Q Do you know that Sommer was, first of all, a civilian employee in D-2?
A I know that in the first months Sommer was wearing civilian clothes, when he performed his duties.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: I understand the witness to say that Sommer was Office Chief of Office D-2?
WITNESS: No, Office Chief of D-2 was -- Sommer was not Office Chief of D-2.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Well, what office was he chief of? You said he was Office Chief?
WITNESS: No, office chief of D-2 was a man called Standartenfuehrer Maurer. Sommer was only in charge of a Department.
DR. BELZER: In that Office?
WITNESS: In Office D-2.
BY DR. BELZER:
Q In your affidavit of 24 January 1947 you said, and I quote:
"When transports of inmates were carried out, or when inmates were shifted from one camp to another, Office D-2 was responsible. What was called the allocation of inmates. The man in charge of that office was Standartenfuehrer Maurer and Sommer was his deputy." Unquote.
I would like to ask you, witness, what do you know about Sommer's activities in Office D-2, and how is it that you are in a position to say that Sommer deputized for Maurer?
A I assumed, when I gave my affidavit, that as Sommer was the Senior SS officer in that Office he would deputize for the Chief.
Q Therefore that was only an assumption on your part?
A Yes.
Q And you want to say that Sommer was the senior officer in that Office, after Standartenfuehrer Maurer?
A Yes, because the main senior officer of course, was Standartenfuehrer Maurer.
Q Do you know from your own observation to what extent Sommer deputized for Maurer?
A No.
Q Do you know anything about the fact - whether Sommer made frequent official trips?
A I remember that Sommer, when I was in that office, as a Stabsscharfuehrer went once or perhaps twice on an official trip.
Q How is it that you are in a position to make statements about those trips?
AAs the Scharfuehrer on the staff of the company I signed all leave orders in a special file in order to have a subhand control over these things. For instance, unjustified use of railways, and so forth.
Q On what is your knowledge based that transports of inmates was the responsibility of D-2?
A I base that on the name given to Office D-2 ... the designation It was called "Labor Allocation of Inmates."
Q Do I understand your answer to the effect that you cannot answer the question from any personal observation, and you regarded Office D-2 as an office responsible for transport only inasmuch as they were transports connected with labor allocation of inmates -- Did I understand you correctly?
A Yes, that is my personal view.
Q Now, in your affidavit you describe things which you have observed yourself, when inmates arrived in Oranienburg after the withdrawal, as you call it. Will you please specify the date?
A I recall transports in the months of January or February 1945, which I saw when I went home and walked from the Sachsenhausen station to the Sachsenhausen camp.
Q Do you know for what reasons these transports of inmates were made, and who had ordered them?
A No.
Q You also say in your affidavit, and I quote:
"I do not know who was in charge of these transports. All I know is that labor allocation was in charge of D-2 and Maurer, who had to see to it that such transports would be carried out honestly and conscientiously." Unquote. My question is witness,: "Was -- to the best of your knowledge -- Office D-2 responsible for these transports were carried out even when the transports were not carried out for reasons of labor allocation, and not ordered by Office D-2?
A I do not know.
Q What was the highest rank Sommer ever held in the Waffen-SS?
AAt the time of the collapse he was an SS Hauptsturmfuehrer.
Q Do you know when Sommer was promoted an Hauptsturmfuehrer?
A I remember that in April 1944 he was promoted.
Q. Will you please tell the Court the ranks equivalent in the Wehrmacht to a Hauptsturmfuehrer?
A. An Obersturmfuehrer in the Waffen-SS would be a first lieutenant in the Wehrmacht.
Q. And what about a Hauptsturmfuehrer?
A. A Hauptsturmfuehrer in the Waffen-SS was the same thing as a captain in the Wehrmacht.
Q. Can you tell the Court what uniforms Sommer used to wear?
A. Sommer wore field gray and long trousers.
Q. Never boots?
A. No, I never saw him in boots.
Q. Was Sommer's uniform unusual, was it a rare uniform?
A. Yes, it was; it was very unusual.
Q. Why?
A. It was rather striking because officer's uniform prescribed boots.
Q. Do you know the reason why Sommer did not wear boots?
A. I remember that Sommer was suffering from an injury sustained in the war. He had an impediment when he walked.
Q. Can you still recall today whether Sommer, particularly at the time when he joined the WVHA, was limping?
A. Yes, yes, in the first years.
Q. Do you know whether Sommer had a motor bike?
A. I never saw him on a motor bike.
Q. You told us just now that you met Sommer in 1942 when he joined the group?
A. Yes.
Q. Was Sommer from that time onwards until the end of the war all the time in Oranienburg in D-II, or do you know anything about the fact that Sommer, for a long period of time, was a labor allocation leader at Auschwitz?
A. While I worked in Office Group D Sommer was always in the office.
Q. A former inmate of concentration camp Auschwitz was interrogated His name was Bielski. His testimony, I shall quote from his testimony in the German record, on Page 365:
"Q. Did you ever see Sommer in the concentration camp of Auschwitz?
"A. Yes.
"Q. How often did you see him in the concentration camp Auschwitz?
"A. I saw him very frequently when he was sitting on his motor bike. He had a motor bike with a side car, and he was always sitting on his motor bike. I saw him accompanied by a labor allocation officer who was an NCO and Oberscharfuehrer or a Hauptscharfuehrer. He was really well known and notorious for his brutality. I saw Sommer also accompanied by a Sturmbannfuehrer who was his superior officer. I do not know his name. All I know is that he was a Sturmbannfuehrer. He was in charge of the whole department, labor allocation, for all camps in Auschwitz, Birkenau and all branches.
"Q. Will you please describe one of the occasions when you saw Sommer?
"A. Certainly. In winter 1943, or at the beginning of 1944, at that time we were a group of electricians and worked together with a detachment of masons in the work shop. This was roughly at a distance of one kilometer from the camp. It was near the masons' work shop. We had constructed the electric equipment in one block, but work in the next block had not been completed, and the roof and the last floor had to be built. Masons also worked there, and it was then that Sommer and two NCO's turned up on his motor bike, and he ran up to us with loud noises. He saw inmates who didn't happen to work at that moment. Thereupon he killed a Jew by breaking his head with a brick. That was his notorious method there of breaking people's heads."
Then to quote from page 366 of the record:
"Q. Did you see any other treatment meted out by Sommer to any other inmates?
"A. He was usually there with his whip with which he used to beat the inmates. He was notorious at that time for his method of breaking peoples' heads with bricks. That was the method how he killed my great friend, Simon Weiss, who was a Polish Jew, while he was doing work. He was cooking potatoes in a room, and Sommer paid a surprise visit to that room, caught him in the act, and broke his skull with a large stone."
Then in cross-examination I asked the Witness Bielski for the exact date when Sommer paid his visit to Auschwitz camp. The witness stated that from August, 1942, until the end of October of 1944, he was in Auschwitz as an inmate, and to my questions he answered that he saw Defendant Sommer constantly in Auschwitz.
He saw him at various times of the year and at various months. I asked the witness to give us a number of times as to how often he had seen Defendant Sommer. Bielski gave me the figure twenty or thirty times. Finally I asked Witness Bielski:
"Q. What was the purpose of the visit of Sommer to Auschwitz?
"A. He was employed there permanently as a labor allocation officer, and his duties were to distribute work among the detachments, and he controlled and supervised them himself."
Witness, I should like to ask you in your opinion and to your knowledge of both Sommer's person and position, can Bielski's statements be correct?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Sommer, as I said before, was always in our office.
Q. Now, according to your observation, was Sommer's conduct as a superior, as a comrade, and as a person?
A. Toward his NCO's and men he was always a good friend and a good superior.
Q. Did you ever notice any brutalities?
A. No.
Q. Would you say that Sommer's character was harsh or soft?
A. I do not understand your question.
Q. Would you say that Sommer's character was harsh or soft?
A. Soft.
Q. Witness, you are at present in the military prison at Nurnberg, are you? Where were you before?
A. In the Sixth Civilian Internment Camp of Neuengamme near Hamburg.
Q. From when to when were you in Neuengamme?
A. From June, 1945, until 1 November 1946.
Q. Did you, in that period of time in Neuengamme, meet a former member of the SS cabled Sommer who during the war was part of the staff of Auschwitz?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you please describe to the Court how you mot this man and what you heard, from him and about him?
A When I was in Neuengamme from June 1945 to November 1946, and I was the leader of the internees of Camp 3. The new arrivals were received. I shook hands with every single new arrival and asked him who he was. In March or April 1946 a man turned up who had been a SS-Unterscharfuehrer and whose name was Sommer, I asked him why he came so late, and the answer was that he had been recognized in Hamburg by a former inmate of Auschwitz concentration camp, and he was immediately chased down the street by him. Sommer, as far as I can remember, was arrested and taken to Neuengamme. When lists were drawn up which was an order given to me by the intelligence officer of the British Army, I received Sommer myself as I did everybody else that came into Camp 3; and when I took down his personal, recent activities, it became clear that the last years of the war, Sommer had been in Auschwitz as a block leader.
Q. Do you know his first name?
A I cannot recall it.
Q Do you know anything about the fact that Sommer was frequently interrogated in Neuengamme?
A Yes. Camp 3 was known as a blocked camp in Neuengamme. The majority of the inmates there were the guard battalion of the concentration camps and camp personnel.
Q Do you know what these interrogations were about?
A Yes. As far as I can recall, frequently, I believe three or four times, a special commission turned up. It consisted of a Polish Captain who interrogated. Sommer frequently on the basis of his activities in Auschwitz as block leader.
Q Where was Sommer taken to?
A Sommer escaped from the camp in October of 1946 together with five or six interness.
Q Do you know why Sommer escaped?
A I assume that the danger existed that he might be handed over to Poland?