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.
Q. I suppose you refer here to Abraham's affidavit, Document NO-2127, in Document Book 21, page 60 of the German text?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, therefore, we have two orders: first, that the gold teeth were to be removed, and, second, that the removal was to be supervised by a dentist. Could you or your superior agency order the camp commandants to have the gold teeth removed? If the removal had been up to the camp dentists-
A. No, I could give no orders of any sort to the camp commandant, nor could my superior agency have done so. They could only issue orders of an expert type.
Q. You said repeatedly that a dentist was under three different agencies; in a disciplinary and military measure, under the commander; then under the doctor of the unit; and, in factual matters, under the leading dentist. Which of these three agencies was in a position to issue the order to remove gold teeth to the dentists in the camp?
A. The order to supervise the removal of the gold teeth, could be done only in the military manner or the medical method. The supervision was not a factual function, and, therefore, the order could not be issued in the factual way. As I said before, this becomes clear from the documents that the order for supervision was issued by Lolling on the medical side.
Q. Now, will you state what your authority was with respect to the camp dentists, did you have the authority to issue orders?
A. No; I said before that I was in a position up to a point to supervise the dentists under me in factual matters, but I did not have the authority to issue orders. I had the possibility to give factual suggestions, but these again went through my superiors to the dentists, and not directly.
Q. What is the factual work of a dentist?
A. What a dentist does is to take steps which are necessary in order to keep the teeth healthy, generally and to do such repair work as becomes necessary.
One could also say that the manufacture of artificial teeth for cosmetic reasons is part of his work.
Q. Does the removal of gold teeth from deceased inmates belong to that work?
A. No; the removal of gold teeth from deceased persons is not part of that work because that type of work is not concerned with killing pain or with help for suffering humanity.
Q. The indictment accuses you of being chief of the dentists, and therefore becoming responsible for the removal of gold teeth from corpses in concentration camps under the WVHA. That, so to speak, you were the chief man in charge of supervision.
A. I was never given an order by anybody to supervise these things in this respect, and I did not do so. I was given no such order at any time.
Q. Then, later on, the reports about the gold teeth reached your office?
A. At my time, the reports about gold teeth went through Office D-3, as did all other reports, because that was the official channel for the dentists in the camp. The same thing applied to my predecessor, I am told. What happened before, when there was no chief dentist with D-3, I am unable to tell you.
Q. What was the purpose of the reports being passed on to Office-14?
A. What purpose was to be reached thereby, I am unable to tell you. I did not issue the order, and I don't know why it was issued. I can only assume that it was a measure to control the dentists so that they would carry out the ordered supervision, and that, therefore, they had to give a report.
Q. Witness, did the fact that you received these reports have any influence on the actual removal of the gold teeth?
A. No, the removal of gold teeth would have been carried out even if these reports had not been made out. If I had had the order to keep statistics about death rates in concentration camps I could not later on be made responsible for the fact that inmates died.
Q. Could you have ordered Office-14 to discontinue the removal of gold teeth?
A. That would have been quite impossible. That order, to stop that Action, would have to be carried out by Office Group Chief D, and be addressed to the camp commandants. Also, through the physician, Chief of Office D-3 to the camp doctors. Both agencies were not in a position to issue such orders to anybody at all. Furthermore, there is the fact that the order to remove gold teeth was an order by Himmler, as Reichsfuehrer--and against that I, or my superior agency, would not have been in a position to do anything at all.
Q. Dr. Pook, in summation, I would like to ask you: Do you believe that you are responsible for the removal of gold teeth from deceased inmates--and therefore guilty--in the sense of the indictment?
A. In my case, criminal responsibility makes necessary an official responsibility. A military superior can be made responsible for the actions of his subordinates only in as much as that action fell within the frame and limits of his official responsibility.
Q. You want to say, therefore, that the removal of gold teeth was not part of your official sphere of responsibility as chief dentist?
A. Yes; the removal of gold teeth went beyond the limits of my official responsibility; my official responsibility concerned only the factual activities and work of dentists. When a soldier becomes part of the process of an order being transmitted, he does not take on any responsibility thereby, no factual responsibility, as it were, for the things which had gone through his office.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q. After the order was issued that the camp dentist supervise the removal of the gold from the teeth of dead inmates, did you carry out that order and supervise the removal of the gold?
A. Your Honor, I must assume so. Many statements by camp dentists show in my case, in documents presented by the Prosecution, that camp dentists were present when the gold teeth were being removed. When other inmates were used actually to remove the gold teeth from inmates-
Q. You didn't answer my question. I asked you: In consequence of the order that the dentist in the camps supervise the removal of the gold teeth of the dead inmates, did you supervise it, in your camp?
A. Your Honor, I was not in a camp.
Q. Well, did you supervise it anywhere?
A. I personally--no. I carried out no supervision.
Q. You did not do any work on the inmates in Oranienberg?
A. No; I was not active in the Oranienberg camp. I visited the actual protective custody camp of Oranienberg-Sachsenhausen throughout my service only twice, I believe--for a very short time. And I only inspected the dental station.
Q. Did you have a dentist subordinate to you in Oranienberg?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you transmit the order to him to supervise the removal of teeth from the inmates in Oranienberg?
A. No, sir, I did not give him that order because that order was issued in 1942 at a time when I was still in Berlin. I was not yet active in Oranienburg at that time.
Q. Was the order carried out by your subordinates after you come to Oranienburg and as a part of D-III?
A. Yes, the dentist of Oranienburg sent also these reports about the gold removed from the dead who had died a natural death.
BY JUDGE MUSMANNO:
Q. When you travelled from camp to camp or visited the camp in any way, did you not have conferences with the dentists in those camps?
A. Your Honor, I only saw very few camps. If I had had my own way, I would gone to the camps more frequently, but, unfortunately, it did not work according to my own ideas. When I visited these camps I limited myself usually to be present in the area of the commandant's office or the barracks. My visits to the actual protective custody camps, in order to inspect the dental station there where inmates were being treated, were always limited to a very brief period of time and took place usually in the morning or, at least, in the day time.
Q. You did, naturally, speak with the dentists in the camps, did you not?
A. Yes, the camp dentist was always present, the one who was responsible for the dental station.
Q. Would it not be inescapable in your discussions with these dentists, these camp dentists, that the subject of the removal of gold teeth from deceased inmates would come up?
A. That subject was usually not discussed. Everybody feels shy of mentioning these things. That it was being done, we knew. I knew it and the camp dentists knew it, but we were not in a position to stop it.
BY DR. RATZ:
Q. Witness, do you believe that you could be charged with the fact that simply be receiving and passing on the reports you were part of this action?
A. Positively not. It cannot be, because these reports which passed through my office were not significant of the actual removal of the gold teeth.
Q. What quantities of gold teeth gave the individual camps in that monthly report?
A. The reports about quantities removed by the dentists and passed on to the Administrative Officer were usually very small. Many camps sent no reports at all and from there one had to assume that no gold had been removed. This is also being confirmed by a document submitted by the prosecution in Document Book V, Document NO-1621, Exhibit 154. This is an order by Liebehenschel, of January, 1943. Here it is where he issues orders to the camp commandants that administrative officers are to hand over the gold no longer monthly or quarterly, but annually in the future. He also makes reference in this document to an order issued by his office, which is Office D-1/1, as early as 1942. All these orders, therefore, about the removal of teeth--of gold teeth--and everything connected with it came from Office D-I.
Q. Do you know what happened to the gold teeth after they left the camp?
A. I didn't know about that at the time, namely, what happened to the gold from the moment it left the Administrative Officer. I made my assumptions, of course, that the administrative Officer would pass it on through his official channels. I know today that the Administrative Officer used D-IV in Office Group D and sent it to Melmer to the WVHA. This become clear from a document Book III. This is a statement made by the administrative Officer of Buchenwald,: a man called Barnewald.
May I perhaps quote a few words, which are connected with the matter. "Gold removed from deceased inmates was sent to me monthly by the dentist with a voucher and I sent it on to Burger in D-IV. But I know the first order which I received with reference to the gold teeth came from D-IV and at that time it was Standartenfuehrer Kaindl in 1940 or 1941." But there is also another statement, which is made by a former administrative officer of Auschwitz who was later Office Chief of D-IV, Burger. The same facts can be seen from that document. Burger says in his affidavit-
DR. RATZ: Witness, to interrupt you, I wish to submit this affidavit to the court now. If the Tribunal please, in my Document Book, it is Document Hermann Pook No. 3, and I wish to give it Exhibit No. 3. It is on page 34 of the Document Book. May I say briefly, that Burger was from 1942 until April 1942 Administrative Officer in the Auschwitz concentration camp. Then he wasp art of the administration of Office Group D of the WVHA. He became an office chief by the end of 1944. He says that the handing over of gold teeth was done in the following manner: The order went through the camp commandant to the administration of the camps and the gold then was sent to the WVHA by the administrative officer. I would like to read an important passage, which is at the bottom of page 24:
"The delivery of the teeth gold was due to an order issued by Gluecks in the beginning of 1943, according to which in addition to the other valuables also the gold of deceased prisoners' teeth was to be handed over. The order was received by the camp commander Hoess who informed the administration thereof."
I would like to state that he confirms what the witness has said. To continue;
"The gold of the deceased prisoners was collected together with other valuables -- Jewelry, rings, watches--and sent to the Economic and Administrative Main Office--WVHA--by the administration of the camp. It went to the Office Group A of the WVHA. I did that myself during my activity as Verwaltungsfuehrer in Auschwitz and can therefore make a definite statement as to this. Hauptsturmfuehrer Melmer, with Office Group A of the WVHA in Berlin, was the person who received these consignments. Once I personally carried out such a transport to Berlin; there were several suitcases that we transported from Auschwitz to Berlin in a truck. Also on other occasions these consignments always went to the Office Group A of the WVHA in Berlin. It is not known to me what the Office D-III of the WVHA, i.e. Lolling or Pook, had to do with the removal of tooth gold."
Then he continues about his experiences as an administrative chef in Office Group D, on page 25:
"While I was working in the administration of the Office Group D. later on Office B-IV, about the end of 1943 or at the beginning of 1944 one more order was received signed by Gluecks, which had been sent to all concentration camps. This order stipulated that all valuables of deceased Jews including the collected tooth gold which had been confiscated by order of the Reich Main Security Office were to be delivered in sealed parcels to D-IV at fixed dates, as far as I remember quarterly, from there the valuables received from all concentration camps with the exception of Auschwitz were to be handed over to Office Group A (Melmer) collectively. This procedure has been followed. This order did not apply to Auschwitz. A special order existed for this camp according to which this camp had to make its deliveries directly to the Office Group A. As far as I know, larger quantities were collected in Auschwitz whereas in the other camps the quantities of collected valuables were small."
The witness then goes on to say, I quote:
"As already noted I do not know what Office D-III had to do with the valuables including the tooth gold. It is not known to me that Dr. Pook had to deal with these things. All valuables coming from a camp including the tooth gold were in each case packed together into one parcel, this parcel was sealed, and it also contained tooth gold. I was not permitted to open the parcel, but I had to forward it to Office Group A in its sealed condition."
Then he says on page 27:
"As has already been mentioned, the Auschwitz concentration camp delivered the valuables to Hauptsturmfuehrer Melmer with the Office Group A directly since in Auschwitz much greater quantities of valuables were collected. I cannot tell whether Office D-III had knowledge of these deliveries from Auschwitz. If one office received such an order-- these were always top secret, military, and top secret-- the other offices did not hear anything about if. I, therefore, do not know either whether Office D-III had received a separate order on the delivery or utilization of tooth gold. As already mentioned, I do not know either whether on the other hand the Office D-III knew that the delivery of the valuables partly was carried on via my office."
The witness then says briefly that such secret orders were not to be discussed by the employees of the various offices.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until 1:45. I remind you again that we will recess for the day at three o'clock.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until 1345.)
( A recess was taken until 1345 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION 1345 hours, 3 July '47 DR. HERMANN POOK - continued DIRECT EXAMINATION - resumed
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. RATZ:
Q Witness, I think I just read to you before recess the affidavit by Burger, who was Administrative Chief in Auschwitz, and then office Chief Office in WVHA, and he testified to the fact that there was a special order for Auschwitz, according to which this camp had to hand over the things to Amtsgruppe-D, rather than to Amts-D-4. I would like to ask you what were the reports you received from Auschwitz?
A From Auschwitz I also only received reports concerning the gold just the same as applied to all the other camps.
Q How can you explain this fact as it says there that mass extermination on a large scale has taken place?
A I have to assume that that tooth gold came from the extermination action which had been removed from the deceased persons, and that for secret reasons it was not reported. I in any case never received any report about that.
Q Apart from you, witness, do you believe that dentists participated in the extermination action?
A I don't know that, and I don't assume so. In a document which was introduced by the Prosecution, namely, the affidavit by a physician in Auschwitz Endress, which is NO-2368 in Document Book 21, Endress states that the removal of gold teeth was carried out under the supervision of an underscharfuhrer who had been designated by Doctor Lolling, especially for that purpose.
Q Which were the reports you received from the camps of the Government General, for instance Lublin?
A From the camps in connection with the Government General, so far as I can recall, I never did receive any reports. I have heard names of those names at the time.