Q. You stated before that in the monthly reports concerning work and personnel strength, it had to be stated how much gold there was in the camp. Did you have record of your own concerning the gold?
A. Every station of the Waffen-SS, not only the dental stations, had to have certain books concerning gold, and in these gold accounts the exact amount of gold, had to be entered, and what the gold was for. That gold was sent to the dental stations on the basis of a requisition which the camp physician wrote out. With the approval for the manufacture of false teeth, that gold was sent to him by Office 14, and that had to be entered exactly. Likewise, after the completion of the work, the remaining gold was again entered accurately. The remaining gold which had accumulated in the course of a few months was sent back to the medical office. From time to time audits of these gold books were carried out by Office 14; for that particular purpose, the gold books were sent to Office 14. As far as the gold books for the dental stations of the concentration camps were concerned, the channel went through Office D-III, so that they had to come to me, and I forwarded them to Office D-III. The other way around, it worked the same way, and I returned them to the dental officers.
Q. Did you check the accounts, or did anybody check the accounts of the bills which the dentists wrote out?
A. Yes, I had to carry out the checking of the vouchers and bills for treatment given to both SS members and inmates. That occurred when a labor detail of inmates, with the necessary guard personnel, was somewhere where there was no possibility of getting treatment in an SS dental station or in a camp dental station. In this particular case there was the possibility that both the inmates and their guard personnel would have to get treated by a dentist in that particular locality where they were at the moment. These reports were submitted. They came from the dental officer of the con centration camp to met.
He had already approved that and after an examination they were returned to the dental station of the camp, and from there they were transferred to the administrative leader of the particular camp for payment.
Q. Were you also working at the garrison dental station of Oranienburg? What was the extent of your activity?
A. During all the time of my stay in that garrison I was active as a dentist, and that lasted for approximately one year. The work there amounted to quite a bit because there were not only quite a few SS members but there were also quite a few SS dependents, and all those people received treatment in that dental station.
The station was rather small. It consisted of only two chairs, so that the single dentist who was there had a lot of work to do. The time for treatment extended over the entire day.
Q. Did you continue your private practice in Berlin in Lichterfelde all that time?
A. I stated before that during the entire period that I was there I worked as much as I could in both the evenings and on Saturdays in my own practice.
DR. RATZ: May it please Your Honors, that is the first chapter of my interrogation. Before I complete that, I would like to introduce the first document. As Exhibit No. 1 I would like to introduce an affidavit of Professor Dr. Blaschke.
THE PRESIDENT: No, we have them; we'll get them.
DR. RATZ: If you don't mind, I would like to give a short description of this affidavit by Professor Dr. Blaschke. May I point out a few important passages to which I would like to draw the Tribunal's attention particularly?
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, will you wait just a minute? We are having these document books brought here. Then we'll understand you.
Go ahead, and we'll try to catch up to you.
DR. RATZ: May I tell you about the affidavit and its contents, rather than read it, and I shall read a few of the most important passages.
Professor Dr. Hugo Blaschke was the Chief Dentist with the Reich Physician SS Dr. Grawitz. He carried out the establishment of the Medical Office of the SS and the Operational Office, Dental Service-later on Office 14, in which the entire dental service of the SS was centralized. Office 14 had the supervision over all dentists of the SS, also over the dentists of the concentration camps. Dr. Pook was the leading dentist in Berlin. Professor Dr. Blaschke says the following, on page 3 of the Document Book, in the middle:
"Through the extension of the dental service during the war, it became necessary to create the position of a Chief Dentist. This was done in the larger formations of the SS such as divisions in which several dentists were working, in order to give Office-14 a better insight into the requirements and performance of individual denial stations.
"Regarding the position of the chief dentists, in professional matters, all chief dentists of the SS were responsible to Office-14, and in all official medical matters the chief dentist was subordinated to the chief physician of the unit in question, such as a division. In matters of discipline the chief dentist as a soldier was subordinated to the commanding officer. However, in questions of promotions and transfers the chief dentist was again subordinated to Office-14, which, to that extent, was competent for the purely professional supervision."
Dr. Blaschke then continues: The position of chief dentist in relation to his subordinated dentists can best be characterized as a mere professional supervision. He had no independent authority of command over the dentists subordinated to him. The chief dentists in their own rights could not give orders of a professional or officially medical character but orders of a professional nature came from Office XIV, and orders of an official medical nature were issued by the respective chief physicians. Apart from the purely professional supervision of subordinated dentists the main task of the chief dentist consisted in advising the chief physician to whom, as mentioned above, he was subordinated in his official medical capacity in dental professional matters.
Dr. Blaschke then also states something about the position of dentists in the various units. He says, and I shall quote: "As in the case of the chief dentist, the dentist of an individual unit was under the control of three deifferent authorities. In his official medical capacity he was subordinated to the medical officer of the unit: in questions of discipline he was responsible to the commander of the unit; and in professional matters he worked under the chief dentist of that unit. Every apparently necessary change, such as the extension or transfer of a depot, or changes in the personnel, had to be submitted by the dentist to the medical officer above him through the channels of the medical service."
Dr. Pook's position was not different than that of any other leading dentist. Particularly he did not have the position of a chief dentist for the concentration camps, which did not exist.
I shall continue with the contents of the affidavit of Dr. Blaschke. Office XIV was competent for all the dental stations of the SS, the garrison dental service, the dental servide of the field units, and camp dental offices. I am just giving you the contents in order to save time rather than to read the affidavit. I shall quote a little bit later on again.
However, for the time being, let me just give you the contents, and may I continue?
Office XIV was competent in a supervisory office for all the dental stations of the SS, the garrison dental stations, the dental stations of the field units, and the dental stations in the concentration camps. Monthly reports were sent there about the work done, and the personnel strength, and all the requisitions of material and drugs were sent there too. Office XIV, therefore, was also competent for the dental services of the concentration camps, that is to say, for the dental matters of all the concentration camps. Office D-III was simply interpolated.
Then I would like to quote from the affidavit on Page 6 of the document book.
"All orders of a professional nature to the camp dentist continued as hitherto to be given by the Chief of Office XIV. Now Pook had the right of purely professional supervision of the dental depots in his sphere of work, but he had no independent authority of command. None of the chief dentists had it. Thus, beyond a doubt, Dr. Pook would have exceeded his authority if he had ordered the dental depots to extract teeth without anaesthetics or if he had told them not to carry out any other type of work. Office XIV which would have had to be informed of such an order by Dr. Pook by the monthly report of performance would have, I feel sure, taken steps against Dr. Pook for exceeding his authority.
Dr. Blaschke then states concerning Dr. Pook's relationship to Dr. Lolling, and I shall quote: "Thus, while the Chief of Office XIV, Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Johannsen, was Dr. Pook's technical superior, his superior in matters of the Medical Service was the Chief of Office D-III, Standartenfuehrer Dr. Lolling. Dr. Lolling was above the camp directors, the camp physicians, also he was the Medical Service chief of the individual dental depots in concentration camps, whereas Dr. Pook me rely had the right of a purely professional supervision over the camp dentists."
Then I shall continue. Dr. Pook did not get along with Dr. Lolling.
Page 7 of the affidavit deals with the tasks of the dentists and also the prisoners' needs. This is rather important. I would like to read quite a few passages. Towards the middle of Page 7 of the document book:
"When in 1936 the first dental depot for the guards at camp Dachau was installed," and this is the third paragraph of Page 7, "it became a matter of course to install simultaneously a depot in the prison camps in order to satisfy the prisoners' dental needs. The same applies to prison camps which were erected later. The administration approved without exception or objection the installation of dental depots for the prisoners. I know that all SS dental depots, thus also those in prison camps, were supplied with the same equipment and material. I can well imagine that during the last years of the war it may have occurred that a dental depot ran out of the necessary materials, thus also anaesthetics, in view of the everincreasing difficulties in the supply of materials. This possibly gave rise to the rumor that teeth were extracted without anaesthetics. I think this rumor was entirely unfounded because only in the rarest of cases were teeth extracted immediately, nearly always this way have been postponed and in some cases it must have been postponed, and beyond any doubt in civilian practice the delivery of anaesthetics was always awaited eagerly. I personally inspected the dental depots for prisoners at Dachau, Buchenwald and Saschsenhausen after they had been installed. They had the usual equipment and were supplied with everything necessary for operating in accordance with modem dentistry. Naturally, the depots which were installed during the latter part of the war were frequently of an improvised type. This made the dentist's work more difficult but, in my opinion, it had no effect on the treatment of patients.
Blaschke then continues: "Not only was there, on principle, the same equipment and material for the dental care of prisoners, but it is a fact that the professional dental work was the same as that carried out for members of the SS.
In any case, as far as I know, no order from above had been given for inferior treatment of inmates as dental patients. The dental gold necessary for dental work was supplied by Office XIV, to my knowledge mainly from the Deguss-Deutsche Gold und Silberscheide-Anstalt. The required gold for dental work in gold had in every case to be requested from Office XIV by the chief of the dental depot in question."
Then Blaschke continues, and I shall quote: "As the removal of dental gold from deceased prisoners is not professional dental work, I am convinced that the order in question did not come from the Dental Service, but from some other department. I know nothing about it, moreover I do not know that Dr. Pook gave such an order. I would most probably have heard about it."
Then in the last paragraph of 6 in his affidavit, Professor Blaschke says about the defendant, Dr. Pook:
"I also wish to make the following statement regarding the personality of the dentist Dr. Pook. As far as I remember in the fall of 1943 POOK was ordered as chief dentist to office D-III of the Economic and Administrative Main Office. Earlier on, he was in charge of the Dental Depot of Berlin and he also had an assignment to the front as dentist of a division. In Office D-III apart from his activity as director and attending dentist at the dental depot of the garrison at Oranienburg, he had the same task as all other chief dentists to provide adequate care for the guards as well as the prisoners.
In matters of the Medical Service he was under the Chief Camp physician, Doctor Lolling, in questions of discipline under the chief of the office group, professionally and regarding transfer and promotion he was under Office XIV.
Dr. Pook was Obersturmbannfuehrer of the Waffen SS. The official rank of doctors as well as dentists was based on their professional aca demic training and not on military dr political capabilities or merits.
After their military basic training generally the dentists of the Waffen SS were immediately given a service rank corresponding to their age and number of years of practice. This was the point of view from which later on, by reason of their professional work, they frequently received quicker promotion than officers of the line. This is also the explanation for Dr. Pook's rank as Obersturmbannfuehrer.
From his activity as chief dentist at the dental depot Berlin, I know Dr. Pook as a serious-minded, conscientious colleague who has great professional abilities and who loves his profession.
Judging by his personality and character I do not believe him capable of any crime."
This is the end of the affidavit by Dr. Blaschke.
BY DR. RATZ:
Q Witness, we shall now proceed to a different chapter; gold for the teeth. The Prosecution charges that the gold was removed from the teeth of deceased inmates, and that the work was carried out by dentists in the concentration camp.
What can you tell us about that?
A There was no order which directed the concentration camp dentist to remove the gold from the teeth of deceased inmates, and that order was not even sent by a medical or dental agency. The dentists, both in the camp and also in the superior agencies, had nothing to do with that matter. As I know today, the gold from the teeth was not only removed from such persons who had died a natural death, but also from persons who had been killed in the extermination actions.
As a leading physician, I had nothing to do with the removal of gold teeth as far as people were concerned who had died natural deaths. As far as removal of gold was concerned from people who had been killed in the extermination programs, there was no question about that. I had no knowledge of the extermination program and their actions; therefore, I couldn't know anything at all about the removal of gold teeth either.
The only thing I know of are the reports which the dentists submitted, concerning the removal of gold teeth of people who had died natural deaths I did not participate in that in any way.
Q Dr. Pook, I would like to ask you what did you know, generally speaking, and what do you have to say, about the removal of gold teeth as far as people were concerned who had died. What is your opinion about that?
A First of all, I would like to make a statement as far as the removal of gold teeth is concerned from people who had died natural deaths, that is, people who had died outside, as free, human beings, and not as prisoners.
Gold for teeth, for the past ten years or so, was used by dentists more and more. By doing so, defective teeth were to be restored and then a restoration of the normal chewing processes was to occur, which no longer existed due to the loss of normal teeth. A biological aim was to be attained by so doing. That purpose, however, no longer becomes necessary at the moment when a man dies.
Other organs also of the human body are no longer necessary; for instance, the eyes, the ears. However, those organs already existed in the normal human body and they were a natural part of the human body. The gold teeth, however, always were a foreign body, so to say, in the human being's mouth -- both when the person is alive and also when the person dies.
Q Do you believe, therefore, that a good tooth is not part of a human being's body? The man who died, for instance?
AAccording to my opinion, a gold tooth bridge or a single gold tooth is no longer a part of a human being's body, or even of a deceased person's body -- any more than anything else is artificial, for instance, an artificial limb.
Q Are you of the opinion that manipulations be permitted to be performed on a human being's body, a deceased person's body?
A I am of the opinion that at that particular moment when a human being dies, the body of that person had the character of something that is not to be touched, of something taboo; that is surrounded by the secrets of eternity of death. It is an obvious sign of the secrets of life which cannot be detected. Whoever starts handling the body of a deceased person violates the laws of morality and ethics.
Q According to your opinion then, are those principles also to apply when the removal of gold teeth from a deceased person is concerned? Would that be considered a desecration?
AAccording to my opinion, this cannot be called a desecration. The things that have been entered into a human being's body artificially -- and if they are removed from the person when the person dies -- cannot be called a desecration. And yet, at the same time, you can't make a difference between a bridge consisting of a few teeth, or perhaps an individual tooth. Nor can it be decisive that for the removal of such gold teeth or a gold tooth force has to be used. As long as this is not done in a manner which implies theft or robbery, removal of gold teeth, morally speaking, cannot be possibly considered a sacrilege. Therefore, it cannot be looked upon as a violation of the piety which has to be shown a deceased man's body; nor can it be considered a violation of the moral code and piety if the members of a family removed a ring from the dead man's body.
THE PRESIDENT: We will suspend for the recess, please.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. RATZ:
Q. Witness, just now you told us quite generally of the problem of the removal of gold teeth from deceased persons. Do you know whether gold teeth were removed from deceased persons on other occasions also, and what reasons would apply there?
A. The removal of gold teeth from deceased persons is carried out not infrequently by relatives before the burying or more frequently still before the cremation, the opinion being that it is not necessary to destroy this valuable gold. In the old days corpses were decorated with all sorts of valuables in order to equip them, as it were, for a journey to the far beyond. Today we know that this is a superstitution. Teeth of gold is not necessary for a deceased person in any sense. The old Roman Laws prohibited that the corpses be given gold to take to the grave because it was considered already at that time a waste of national property.
Q. In Germany was the removal of gold from deceased persons discussed scientifically?
A. I remember that about twenty years ago the expert literature discussed that question hotly. It was thought at the time that an annual value of about RM 4,000,000 was drawn out of the economy in this manner.
DR. RATZ: I have selected one article from these essays. It is part of my document book, and I wish to submit that article as Exhibit No. 2 to this Tribunal. It is on Page 48 of my document book, and it is an article from the dental magazine, "Zahnaerztiche Rundschau" In 1925 Dr. Werkenthin, who was a dentist, wrote on the subject, "The Gold of the Dead". I could perhaps sum up what the article says and then follow this with a few important quotations.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Do you think that it is necessary -- I am only speaking for myself now in this respect -- that where you present an exhibit of this nature, which is only an article, that you should read it in Court? This is something that we want to read and study and deliberate on, and, of course, we'll do that. To me, it seems that we going to take up a lot of unnecessary time reading a magazine article in our Court procedure. You will recall that the Prosecution presented hundreds of documents without reading them. Now, I can understand where you have an affidavit of importance to read excerpts from it would be entirely in order, as you did with the preceeding affidavit, but to read an article is certainly, as I view it, an unnecessary expenditure of time.
DR. RATZ: Then I shall not read this document or even sum up the contents.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: I would say that if there is some passage which you regard as of extreme importance and want particularly to direct our attention to it, that would be entirely in order, but merely to read a magazine article I think goes a little bi beyond what we usually accept in our trial procedure.
DR. RATZ: Then. I would like to take the liberty of describing briefly what the article says in one or two words. Dr. Werkenthin says roughly this: I am not quoting, but I am simply summing up what he says:
One does not like to hear too much about the gold of the dead. Nevertheless, it is important, he claims, to stop for one moment because no regimes eternal is given as long as the deceased still hold something which he no longer requires. The author then debates the possibility of saving the gold which was part of the mouth of the deceased. An agreement of his heirs, to remove the gold from the mouth hardly ever is given because the laws of piety would not allow that thought to be entertained. The author then says literally the following and I would like to quote from the bottom pf Page 49:
"Even if our ancestors have thought this way, conditions have changed at the time we started to use gold in quantity for the filling of cavities in human teeth. The amount used in individual cases, is, however, insignificant, but in its entirety it is already considerable and will increase from one decade to the other. A very superficial computation: --"
Then the author compiles an amount and comes to the result that annually a total of 3/8 Million marks worth of gold would disappear, as it were.
Then I should like briefly to read a short sentence from the top of Page 51:
"At any rate this much is certain: Only the living person has the right to avail himself of such extremely important material as gold is in the world economy. No amount of reverence can require us to leave it to the dead for 30 or 60 years without interest."
Then I should like to quote briefly a few sentences from Page 53:
"Let us remember that if it were possible to restore these neglected four or five millions to the stream of active economy for 30 consecutive years, it would be 150 millions in gold, which would then be of use again to suffering human beings.
And that we need and and could use even a great deal more gold for the thorough repair of human partdentures than even this amount would cover, each look into the mouths of our patients tells us especially of those who are 'not so well off', who still have to be satisfied with the wretched makeshifts of rubber, silicate and amalgam in hugh numbers. 'The American worker has more gold in his mouth than the European has in the savingsbank,' the American Secretary of Labor recently said, not without cynicism."
On Page 54 of the document book,,Page 7 of the original:
"The salient point, now, in the whole matter is, however, neither the one nor the other of the things discussed hitherto. Nobody would raise any objection - nobody would put down a waste of four to five million marks as of no consequence or take pains to represent the gold of the artificial crown as an unalterable constituent part of the corpse ('of the person' says Hartkopf) as a part which 'hitherto worked physiologically' (like everything else which in decency is left to the worms and scavengers to devour), if it could be removed from the mouth as easily as substitute denture with an india rubber palate, which is probably always removed by the layers-out or is even put aside by the relatives of the patient or the dying man who no longer needs it, before the end. No one will see anything indecent in these actions, as little as in the removal of the rings or the shaving.
"What scares people is that the gold of the crowns and bridges would have to be removed from the dead person's mouth by the intervention of an expert, for which 'congenial' activity, as the doctor and dentist, my colleague Buff thinks, not many colleagues would probably be found willing."
One more sentence I would like to read:
"That is the salient point: The apparent violence of the removal, which it seems impossible to reconcile with decency and because it is done for purely material reasons if one believes he must put such a low estimate on the bringing back into the purposeful circulation of the living of this most precious substance which is only present in limited quantity on the earth."
And my last quotation, namely, the final sentence of the article, on Page 57 of the document book:
"I do not believe I stand alone in the conviction that the reverence should not lay so much weight on a corpse. In the embalming of royalties, for example, many things take place which seem to me to be very indecent. Eastern peoples who profess a deep and strongly felt ancestor-worship act quite queerly with the body. (Cf. Sven Hedins Tyanshimalaya). I close with a few words which transcent by far anything which we can devote to the poor dust because they enter into the transcendental, into the ideal nature of things: 'Let the dead bury their dead! Why seek you the living among the dead?'"
THE PRESIDENT: Well, overlooking the question of decency and morality, which plainly is debatable, who do you think should have the possession and right to the gold? How does the Reich, or any other government, get the right to take this personal property away and claim ownership of it? That is an interesting legal question, which may not be involved here.
DR. RATZ: In my future questions, Your Honor, I shall ask the defendant, who of course is not a legal expert, and I, of course, shall permit myself to make some comments.
BY DR. RATZ:
Q. Witness, up until now you have only spoken about people who died in freedom. Now, what about removal of gold teeth from deceased inmates? What is your opinion of that?
JUDGE MUSMANNO: May I ask a question, please? As a matter of information, was it the practice in Germany before the war to remove gold from the teeth of deceased people? Just generally, was it a general practice?
THE WITNESS: No, sir, it was not the general practice but it did occur in isolated cases.
DR. RATZ: May I say to this that I have asked a great many German crematoria and I was given the answer that no general regulation existed to this effect, but that in not infrequent cases the relatives, immediately before cremating, had the gold teeth removed. I shall submit this information as a document later on.
THE WITNESS: May I say something about this, too? In this case before the war it happened frequently that the workers in the crematoria illegally helped themselves to this gold. Articles appeared in newspapers and even the expert publications wrote about this. That problem was also debated in the dental magazines because the opinion prevailed, as a matter of principle, that a legal regulation should be put into force. I remember that particularly in a Dresden crematorium workers and employees of the crematorium were, on the basis of such occurrences, dismissed from their service, which happened before the war, in the early 30's, I should imagine, but I cannot recall the year.
Q. (By Dr. Ratz) Now, will you please give us your comments, witness, as to your opinion on removal of gold teeth from deceased inmates?
A. An inmate, a prisoner, whether he dies in a penal institution or in a camp, usually dies without his relatives at his bedside. They are frequently not in a position financially to provide the money for the transport of the body home for interment. Therefore, the state has to do something. Also to a soldier who is killed abroad or for a prisoner of war the same applies.
The military authorities have to look after the interment. It is their duty even. But for a long time, and not only in the last few years since the days of the National Socialistic regime, the practice has prevailed that of the corpse of a man who has died as a prisoner, the authorities have a certain right of disposal, as they have over bodies for which nobody seems to have an interest. They are in a position to bury them or cremate them, but what happens so often in these cases, they can use the corpses for autopsies for scientific purposes. I believe that for that reason the authorities in concentration camps were in a position to have the gold teeth removed in order to prevent its total destruction, because in that case also relatives were usually not available who could make their dispositions about the corpses of inmates.
Q. But the decisive fact seems to be that the gold removed from the mouth of the inmate was not handed over to the relatives and heirs.
A. That question is, of course, very important, but when I was a dentist in D-III I had no knowledge, not even the faintest idea, of what happened to the gold. I knew only that it was handed over to the administration. For questions of property rights the administrative authorities had to take over the responsibility. I had no insight into the legal aspects. All I knew was what I heard about official reports through the channels, that is to say, through D-III.
Q. Removal of gold teeth has been referred to by the prosecution as part of Action Reinhardt, and therefore as a criminal action, because of the inmates murdered in this extermination action, the gold was removed. What can you tell us about that?
A. I had no knowledge about the extermination action, nor did I have any knowledge of the fact that gold teeth were removed on those occasions and handed over accordingly. At that time when the Action Reinhardt was in full swing, I was not part of the WVHA, but at that time I was the dentist of a troop unit at the front. I know today that that gold, for instance, from Auschwitz reached Melmer in the WVHA on the direct way from Auschwitz.
During my activity in Office III, I had no reports, saw no reports, nor did I receive any reports which were concerned with this gold from the extermination action.
Q. Do you know on the basis of what order the gold teeth were removed from dead inmates?
A. I never saw an order, "but I heard that the removal of the gold teeth was carried out on the basis of a Reichsfuehrer order dated 33 September 1940. At that time I was not yet a member of the Waffen-SS. The witness Kogon also confirms that date and that order of Himmler in his book.
Q. So it was a Himmler order, was it, which then reached the various camps? Who, in your opinion, was it that ordered the usual camp commandant to remove the gold teeth from deceased inmates?
A. In 1940 the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps was under the Main Operational Office, that is to say, under Himmler's direction. I have to assume that the order was issued from him, through the Inspectorate, that is Gluecks, to the camp commandant, and that simultaneously the detailed execution orders were issued by Gruppenfuehrer Gluecks to the physician in charge of the Inspectorate, who then passed then on officially to the camp doctors. This channel was described by Ackermann, who was a prosecution witness, and he confirmed that when he was on the witness stand here that he as an inmate of Buchenwald, as a medical clerk, saw an order by the camp doctor which ordered the removal and handing over to the administrative office of the gold teeth. Another document presented by the prosecution, which is NO-2127, in Book XXI, is an affidavit of Dr. Abraham, who was the camp dentist of Buchenwald. He again confirms in his affidavit that the official order about the handing over of the gold came from Lolling.
DR. RATZ: May I state that the witness Ackermann has confirmed what witness Pook has just said, and he did so on the 24th of April on the German records on page 949.
Q. (By Dr. Ratz) Witness, Office XIV, or you as the leading den tist of D-III, would you have been in a position to either issue or pass on the order that the gold teeth had to be removed from dead inmates?
A. I was in no position to give such an order, nor could any superior agency have done so, because that order went entirely beyond the limits of a dentist's work, and it went completely beyond the limits of my authority and competence.
Q. How was the order executed in the individual concentration camps?
A. I know nothing about that from my own knowledge. I was never working as a dentist in a camp. I heard that the camp doctor employed inmates who worked in the hospital for that purpose.
Q What part was played, in your opinion, by the camp dentist when this order was carried out?
A. The camp dentist, as far as I can judge it, had never played a part when the gold was being removed. I don't think he was called in to carry out the removal at any time. It was at some point in 1942 he received an order by Lolling to the effect only to supervise the removal. Here again we have statements made by camp dentists and they are contained in documents presented by the prosecution.