Pursuant to Himmler's order, the SS and police Leaders, when the enemy approached had to take over the authority over a concentration camp and decide what was to be done with the concentration camp. Office Group D, therefore, was more or less eliminated at that time.
THE PRESIDENT: Cross examination by other defense counsel?
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. MUELLER-THORGOW (for the defendant Georg Loerner):
Q Witness, if I remember correctly, you were from March 1941 onwards with the Dest and there you were concerned with labor allocation from the beginning. Isn't that correct?
A Yes.
Q The defendant Georg Loerne at that time was chief of Office I in the Main Office Budget and Construction. Under him was the Main Department 1/5, which apart from rabbit breeding and things like that also dealt with labor allocaion of inmates. Georg Loerner has stated on the witness stand on cross examination when he replied to a question put to him by the prosecution that at that time no program of labor allocation was as yet in existence. Inmates were mostly employed by the SS economic enterprises in order to carry out the extensive building program. No large-scale program existed at that time. The program of labor allocation originated only in 1942.
Now, Witness, it would be interesting to hear something from you in order to complete the picture. I believe you gave us a hint yesterday about how you as the collaborator of an economic enterprise regarded these things at the time quite generally. Are you of the opinion that Georg Loerner has described the situation correctly, or has he made a mistake in your opinion?
A No, as I see it, he has described the situation quite correctly. I said yesterday that when I had my first conference with Maurer not one word was mentioned with regard to the fact that inmates were to be employed in armament industries or that concentration camps would release inmates for work of that mature. The work was exclusively concerned with the labor allocation of inmates with the SS industries; I believe I can member that at that time only two detachments existed in all the concentration camps which could be regarded as armament details. One was a detachment in the Buna Works at Auschwitz and the other was with the Weinkel Works in Oranienburg to build an airfield. That, in my opinion and the the best of my recollection was all that was done for the armament industry.
Q Witness, yesterday you said that whenever there were any difficulties regarding labor allocation questions in the Dest you would turn to the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps and not to Georg Loerner or to Pohl. May I ask you first of all to repeat briefly why you did that?
AAs I said yesterday, I put that question to myself when I studied the documents, when on the basis of the organization chart of the Office Budget and Construction I saw that the Department 1/5 was under Loerner at the time. I do not know why we did not turn to Loerner at the time. I did not realize at the time that the possibility existed for us to turn to Loerner with our worries. We turned exclusively to Burboeck or to Gluecks.
Q Was it your impression at the time that Burboeck for old practical purposes mas under Loerner or under the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps?
A I had no impression at all because I knew nothing about these connections between Burboeck and Loerner.
Q Georg Loerner said on the witness stand that in the spring of 1941, probably in March or April, he and Gluecks made an oral arrangement to the effect that labor allocation questions should be dealt with by the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps from that moment. It is difficult to find anything about the oral arrangement apart from what Loerner said. There is no evidence. Gluecks himself is dead, and we did not succeed in locating Burboeck. Therefore, I might say, Witness, that when you were with the Dest you at that time knew nothing of this oral arrangement. Is that correct?
A That is correct. I knew nothing of this arrangement.
Q My question is, do you think that this sort of an arrangement is a possibility on the basis of your knowledge, or that it is even a possibility?
AAll I can say is that when I was there I did not see any connection between Burboeck and Loerner because otherwise it would have been much easier for us to go to Loerner or to Pohl because they would have seen to it that brings would have been arranged in our way.
Q If you forget all about this arrangement which Loerner alleges had taken place, I would like to ask you, was the situation at that time the same which would have resulted from an arrangement of that sort quite logically?
A I can answer that question in the affirmative.
Q A final question, Witness. You said before the recess. "As far as Georg Loerner was concerned, I never had any official contacts with him." What was the reason for this? Was it that Georg Loerner was Chief of the Office Group and you were only in charge of a Main Department; that Georg Loerner was a Lt. General and you were only a 1st Lieutenant; or was the reason rather in the difference between Office Group B and D? At least where D II was concerned were there any official contacts at all?
AAs far as I was concerned, the reason was that my field tied me to my desk in Oranienburg. It never became known to me that Office Chief Maurer had any official contacts with Loerner. I know of no correspondence.
DA. MUELLER-THORGOW: I have no further questions.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
BY DR. KLINERT (Attorney for Defendant Volk):
Q Witness, you said on direct examination that you met Volk while you worked at the DEST. I would like to ask you whether Volk was employed by the DEST?
A No, Volk was not a member of the DEST. He merely happened to be in the same building where the DEST was located, the Geisbergstrasse in Berlin and that is how I know him.
Q Thank you, no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: If there are no more questions by defense counsel, the Prosecution may cross-examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. RUDOLPH:
Q Defense counsel has just asked you to describe all the contacts you had with the other defendants. Have you described all such contacts?
A Yes, as far as I remember.
Q Is this with reference to conversations, meetings and correspondence?
A It concerns the personal contact as I remember it.
Q It wouldn't have included the contacts you had on official correspondence with these individuals, would it?
A If you mean the correspondence of my agency, that was not included.
Q Well, will you enumerate for us your official contacts with the various defendants starting with Oswald Pohl?
0
A I only had those contacts I described with Pohl. My office chief used to see Pohl once a week and have a conference with him. He would take everything that had accumulated along in a brief-case and Pohl issued his orders for labor allocation to Office Group D-II. Anything which was important was taken by Maurer to Pohl. As I remember it, I only drew up the application lists for the selection of inmates. They were submitted to Pohl and Pohl made the decisions as Court No. II, Case No. 4.to whether these lists should be acted upon.
Q What about the defendant Georg Loerner?
AAs I said before, I did not know that my office has any official contacts with Loerner. I cannot recall any correspondence with Georg Loerner at all.
Q Then you always by-passed Loerner and went directly to Pohl if the occasion arose for that?
A I myself never went to see Pohl. Where Maurer went to I do not know because it was not his duty to report to me or explain to me where he had been.
Q But you were in fact the deputy of Maurer, were you not?
A I was Maurer's deputy in order to give information about labor allocation matters.
Q Is there any person in Amtsgruppe D who was appointed Maurer's deputy for any other purpose?
A No.
Q Then you were the only person who could be regarded as the deputy of Maurer in D-II? Is that not correct?
A Yes, I could be considered that within the limited sphere of tasks which I have already described.
Q Could anyone else be regarded as the deputy of Maurer?
A No.
Q You couldn't be regarded as the deputy of anyone else but Maurer, could you?
A I was only deputized for Maurer, that is to say, if somebody rang up or wanted some information he was taken to Maurer's deputy which was Sommer. I listened to what they wanted and reported to Maurer. That was as far as my deputizing for Maurer went.
Q Well, as deputy for Maurer, you would know whether he went to Maurer or Pohl? One of the reasons you were appointed deputy was because you knew what Maurer did?
A When Maurer went to the Main Office in Berlin, he usually Court No. II, Case No. 4.went together with Gluecks.
I only knew that he was going to see Pohl in the WVHA at Berlin. Apart from that, I am unable to tell you whether he went to Loerner or another Office Group Chief.
Q Did you ever contact the defendant Hans Loerner?
AAs I said before I personally met Hans Loerner at the Sudelfeld in the fall of 1943. Otherwise no official contact with Hans Loerner is known to me.
Q You at no time assigned any inmates to Hans Loerner? Is that correct?
A No.
Q Or at his request?
A I don't remember anything, no.
Q What about Frank?
A I described how I met Frank personally. Whether Maurer went to see him or reported to him, I do not know.
Q Have you ever had any contact with him in the course of official business of Office D-II?
A I know of no such contacts.
Q And how about Vogt?
A Through the organizational chart I knew Vogt. I have never seen one document in my office which was addressed to Vogt.
Q What about Fanslau?
A I did not know Fanslau either. Our personnel matters within D-II were passed on to Harbaum or Gluecks. What happened after that I don't know.
Q Coming down to Office B-I, what about Tschentscher.
A I never knew Tschentscher before I came to Nurnberg nor did I see any correspondence which was addressed to Tschentscher.
Q Did his office ever request inmates for any labor to be assigned to him for their use?
A I know that the main depots had inmates, but I do not believe that they were requested by Tschentscher but according to channels Court No. II, Case No. 4.they had to be requested by the main depot itself.
Q That was Tschentscher's responsibility though, was it not?
A Responsibility for what?
Q For food supplies.
A Food supplies for the inmates were supplied by the Regional food offices and purchased from private firms by the administrative officers of the concentration camps. I thought earlier that Tschentscher in some form or other participated in negotiations about the accounts but that is purely an assumption. I have no documentary evidence for that.
Q Do you recall that your office did have some contact with Tschentscher?
A I personally have seen Tschentscher here for the first time and I don't know whether there was any correspondence.
Q Your memory is extremely good on things you want to remember. Try to remember whether you met Tschentscher or not. Do you remember if you have had any official contact with him.
A No, I don't recall any such occasion.
Q What about Scheide?
AAs I said before I went to see him once when I needed a railway wagon but apart from that I didn't see him or have any contact with him nor was there any contact between D-II or Scheide.
Q No inmates were furnished to Scheide at any time?
A The WVHA had inmates working in its garage in Berlin; whether they were requested by Scheide or by somebody else I don't know; I hardly think so; it may have been that they were requested by Scheide because as I see it they were there from the beginning.
Q Skipping down to Office C-I, were any inmates assigned to Office C-I?
A Requests for inmates, where building matters were concerned usually came from the construction managements or the central construction managements; information came to us from C-5 as I remember, as far Court No. II, Case No. 4.as Office Group C was concerned.
The other offices as I remember, did not appear in this at all.
Q Then Loerner was the only person with whom you had contact in Amtsgruppe C?
A Yes, that was Office C-V and there was a man called Obersturmfuehrer Prinzel, who, when requests for inmates were made, would pass them on to us. The letters as I remember it, were all signed by Kammler.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 2 July 1947 at 0930 hours.)
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
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 2 July 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Robert M. Toms, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please take 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.
KARL SOMMER - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. RUDOLPH:
Q Witness, at the close of yesterday's session I was in the process of asking you which defendants you had contact with in either a personal or official way. To preclude the possibility of any misunderstanding, let me explain that when I say "contact" I mean to include all types of contact, whether in person, by letter, memoranda, telegram, or other type of correspondence or by telephone. In giving your answers yesterday, did you include all these types of communication?
A Yes, I recall, certainly. May I perhaps add the following: I estimated in Office D-II that fifty to one hundred letters would arrive per day. That is to say in three years of my work there that amounts to roughly 90,000 letters. Of course, I cannot remember every single letter. The principle we observed was that when inmates were requested, the person in whose building they were to work had to make the initial request. Great attention was paid to the fact that this was carried out. I have taken the witness stand in order to speak the truth. I have no reason to cover up for any of the defendants in the dock. I gave my answers in accordance with the truth as I remember it.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Did you contact anyone in Amtsgruppe A or B yesterday in addition to the defendants? Strike that "yesterday". Did you at any time contact anyone in Amtsgruppe A or B other than the defendants?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A May I just look at the organizational chart about that? No, I cannot remember that any contact existed, with the exception of Oberfuehrer Dr. Salpeter who was in charge of A-3, but the contact there originated from the time when he was manager of the DEST.
Q Did you at any time contact Office D-2 in connection with the assignment of concentration camp inmates?
A There was some contact with Obersturmbannfuehrer Lechler, but I think that this contact with Lechler existed with regard to his position as the manager of the Textile and Leather Works, Limited, not with B-2, as I remember it.
Q Well, were any inmates assigned to the production of clothing for B-2?
A For the manufacture of clothing only as far as the company for textile and leather products was concerned.
Q That is shown by the chart?
A Yes, it is; the chart shows under Office Group W, Office W-6, Obersturmbannfuehrer Lechler.
Q Did you have any contact with Office B-3 in connection with the construction of buildings or quarters?
A Office B-3 was located, in the end, north of Oranienburg, and employed inmates.
Q Didn't they have contact through your office?
A Who requested the inmates, I don't know, but I assume that it must have been the chief of B-3.
Q Witness, I have asked you to be sure to enumerate all the people and all the offices in either Amtsgruppe A or B that contacted you for inmates. I don't think there is any ambiguity in that question.
A I said that Office B-3 employed inmates in its office near Oranienburg.
Q That is all I asked you originally: if there were any persons--Whether Offices A or B had any inmates assigned to them; and you said only what you told me yesterday. And now it develops that there Court No. II, Case No. 4.are additional ones.
A What you asked me yesterday was whether there was any contact between D-2 and the co-defendants in the dock. You called the names of the defendants and you did not ask me about Office B-3 yesterday.
Q And this morning I asked you about what other offices in B-2 other than the defendants you had contact with--you didn't tell me about either Lechler or Office B-3-
THE PRESIDENT: Well, they are not defendants in the dock. That is what is confusing him.
MR. RUDOLPH: No, I asked him for persons other than defendants.
THE PRESIDENT: This morning?
MR. RUDOLPH: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, he is telling you.
MR. RUDOLPH: But only after I had to pump it out of him.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think that is fair. I think the witness is trying to answer the question.
BY MR. RUDOLPH:
Q You stated yesterday that the affairs of your officers were cleared once a week with Pohl, did you not?
A Yes, Maurer went once a week, together with Gluecks, to see Pohl.
Q And Oswald Pohl at all times was aware of the activities of your office, particularly with respect to the allocation of concentration camp labor?
A I am bound to assume that, yes.
Q What were the functions of Office B-4, and did they at any time require any concentration camp labor to be assigned to them?
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say B-4?
MR. RUDOLPH: Yes.
A B-4...no.
Q And B-1?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A B-1, as I said yesterday--I know that the troop depots and main depots employed inmates. What B-1 did when inmates were requested, I don't know. As I remember it, its requests came from the main depots and the troop depots themselves.
Q Although you didn't contact all the defendants, do you deny that each Amtsgruppe had concentration camp labor allocated to its offices?
A Office Group A certainly did not have any inmates. Office Group B, as I told you, had them in the main depots and troop depots under B-1. Office B-2 had inmates in the clothing works and for sometime in the clothing treasury. Office B-3 had inmates in its offices near Oranienburg. And B-3 never had inmates, as far as I know. Office B-5 had a large garage--that is to say, the WVHA had a large garage. And I think that B-5 was in charge of that garage, and inmates were working there.
Q Does that cover all of the Amtsgruppen that employed concentration camp inmates?
A Only Office Groups A and B.
Q Did Amtsgruppe D, W and C also employ concentration camp inmates?
A In the WVHA itself, under Eicke, a lot of construction work was carried out. I believe a private firm was used there called Arag. To what extent that firm was under Office Group C, or not, I do not know. I said yesterday that, as I remember it, inmates were used for building projects if Office Group C requested them. And then Office C-5, of which Kammler was personally in charge, at least for some time, would request them. There an Obersturmfuehrer Prinzel would request inmates from us. Usually inmates were requested by the local construction managements through the building inspectorate as the central office.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, start with Amt C-1 and go right down through the Amtsgruppen. Then take D, and do the same. And the question Court No. II, Case No. 4.is, were concentration camp inmates used in connection with that office, witness--or the work of that office.
Amt C-1.
WITNESS: Yes, Mr. President. Your Honor, I do not know much about the inner workings of the various offices of Office Group C. I see here that Office C-1 was responsible for the construction of the Waffen-SS, concentration camps, POW camps and construction work for the German Police and the Allgemeine SS. I do not remember that at any time there was from Office C-1 any request for inmates, although in the three years of my work with C-2 such construction work was carried out. Quite obviously, Office C-5 had a central agency which centralized all requests for labor and which would look after the labor allocation for office Group C, which was not limited solely to concentration camp inmates.
Everything, therefore, which came from Office Group C came from Office C-5. As far as the other offices are concerned, I do not know that inmates were requested at any time. Office Group D, in its own building in Oranienburg, had two detachments of inmates. Once there were ten female Jehovas witnesses for cleaning work and work in the canteen, and ten to fifteen male inmates who worked in a radio repairshop.
As to Office Group W, inmates were employed by W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4, W-5, W-6; W-7 never had any inmates.
As for W-VIII, I am not quite certain that Sudelfeld Recreation Home, for instance, was under W-VIII from an organizational point of view, and inmates were used there, but I know that the man in charge of the home would address his wishes exclusively to Pohl and Pohl would then pass them on in the form of an order to us.
Also, for the construction detachment in Wevelsburg, when inmates were required, they would be requested by Bartels who was in charge there. Wewelsburg itself was under Obersgruppenfuehrer Taubert, who also participated when requests for inmates were discussed. How they stood in relation to W-VIII, I am unable to judge. Of course, when these requests turned up, the chief of W-VIII, Klein, never appeared on the scene.
Q.- I call your attention to Exhibit 360, included in Document Book 12 on page 37, Document No. 597, a plan for the Documentary Unification of the Filing System, marked "top secret." This plan was prepared by you, you stated yesterday, isn't that correct?
A.- Do you mean Document NO-597, sir? Yes, this document consists of two parts. The first part is the File plan of June 1944 and was drawn up by me at the time.
Q.- Where does the part that you prepared stop?
A.- On page 45 of the German Book with the Concentration camp Plassow allocation for SS agencies. The new file plan of 1 October 1942, which starts on the next page, was not drawn up by me.
Q.- Are the two plans intended to fulfill the same purpose?
A.- The plan of 1 October 1942 had become obsolete through the events. It was rescinded, and was replaced by the Plan of June 1944.
Q.- All the facts set forth in the first plan were incorporated in some phase or another in the one you set up, were they not?
A.- When this file plan was sent to the concentration camps, the second plan was not attached. It had already been in the camps for two years.
Q.- But when your plan supplanted the first one, it was intended to keep all the items that were set forth in the original plan, was it not?
A.- No, what it says in the letter is that the Office D-II in the WVHA had compiled a certain plan for labor allocation of inmates. That is the same plan, and later on it says that the concentration camps as far as the allocation of labor was concerned had to adjust their procedure and adhere to that plan and use the same file notes. They listed the whole file system of concentration camps as far as they concerned allocation of labor which had to be read justed according to this plan.
Q.- Who compiled these records within the camps?
A.- I assume the labor allocation officer or any official appointed by the camp commandant.
Q.- Can't you be more definite than to assume? You must know who compiled these records.
A.- No, I'm not able to know this, because the labor allocation officer did not have to account to us and the camp commandant was in a position to give orders to anybody else. I said yesterday that the labor allocation officer worked according to the ideas of the Assistant Camp Commandant, but each camp would do it in a different way. I never noticed this because the mail was almost exclusively signed by the camp commandant.
Q.- On the Table of Operations was this officer under your jurisdiction?
A.- You mean, the agency labor allocation within the concentration camps?
Q.- Yes.
A.- No, that was not under our jurisdiction. This was a department of the concentration camp and the camp commandant was in charge.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: I just want to be sure that I understand your po sition about the allocation of labor.
This is the way I understand by now from your testimony. If I am wrong, I want you to correct me. Your office, D-II, when you received a request from headquarters or from any other agency that was entitled to have labor allocated to them, and would request of your office a number of inmates for a certain purpose to a certain place, you would grant that request in your office, and send the order for the inmates to the concentration camp. There, the allocation officer in the concentration camp, together with the camp commandant, would select the inmates that would be sent on the allocation order issued by your office. Now is that correct?
WITNESS: It is correct, approximately. If a request reached us, the camp commandant would be asked to see how many people he could allocate and find out whether any allocation was available. If he answered that question in the affirmative, the request was made part of a new list, was submitted to Pohl, and Pohl decided yes or no and then the camp commandant would receive orders from us whether inmates had to be transferred or not. That is how it worked.
Q.- I would like to ask one question in line with that put to you by the Judge. In what detail were these requests for inmates filled out by the requesting agency?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't understand the question. "In that detail" -
Mr. RUDOLPH: What did they describe, the type of work that it was to be for, the construction project -
A.- The man who sent the request, submitted a form, which is Exhibit 362, submitted by the Prosecution. That form had to be filled in and he had to sign it and set forth how many inmates he wanted to have, what type of work was to be carried out, and the camp and the camp commandant had to write on the back of that page in great detail how the food would be handled, what guards, there would be, about billets and transportation, if transportation should be necessary. That request was then sent by the commandant to D-II and there it was handled in accordance with Pohl's order, signed by Maurer and sent back to the camp commandant.
Q.- would this apply to all applications whether a part of the WVHA or whether it was private industry?
A.- Yes, up to May or June, 1944, because after that there was the arrangement with Speer's Ministry whereby requests for inmates had to be passed through the Speer Ministry exclusively.
Q.- Then you know in fairly good detail what the concentration camp inmates were being used for on the basis of the applications, did you not?
A.- The last concentration camp inmates were transferred two and a half years ago. I knew it very well at one time and I believe, if I read the names of the firms again, I would remember again to what they were transferred.
Q.- No, I was asking you the type of work done, different construction and projects that they worked on, not the names of the firms.
A.- Construction measures were handled in the following manner: The building managements at the beginning of the year were given a certain number of inmates and the building agencies would then make the necessary construction with those inmates. If a new construction project appeared, therefore, an old one had to be completed first and then the new one could be started. It had to be handled in that manner, because Mauer endeavored to concentrate under himself as much labor as possible and took over any orders on them. Therefore, for construction measures, approval was given once at the beginning of the year and it applied until the end of the year. Only in exceptional cases when enormous additional labor was required, it was handled differently. A different thing determined such measures carried out by Kammler, but he did not carry them out within office groups. All these things were called A and B measures and for these special measures a special procedure was followed.
Q.- Then you say that you don't know what the inmates were used for, is that your answer?
A.- A building agency could use inmates only for building operations.
Q.- I was not limiting my question to building inmates. I was making my question broad and comprehensive. Is it that you do not know what inmates were used for by the requesting agencies?
A.- No, as I said just now, that I knew in great detail at one time, because I was very often asked about it, but now that two and a half years have passed I cannot improvise an answer, but I believe I would remember it, if I heard the name of a firm, for instance.
Q.- You received these reports required under The Plan for Documentary Unification for Concentration Camps regularly?