Q What did you say?
A I told him that I agreed to the proposition.
Q So that when you were transferred to the SS, you were transferred with your consent?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q You were not forced to join the SS? You were not forced then to join or go to the SS?
A I was transferred as a soldier from the Navy to the SS-Verfuegungstruppe. However, I was not compelled to do so.
Q However, at that time the SS was not drafting persons either out of the Navy, or civilians, is that right?
A Nobody was conscripted.
Q You told us that you were a member of the Party through 1933. until when?
A 1933 I entered the Party, and when I was assigned to the Navy I again had to leave the Party as a soldier.
Q Did you resign from the Party, or officially leave if, formally?
AAt the time I had to leave the Party, and when I was transferred to the SS-Verfuegungstruppe I had to re-enter the Party.
Q You rejoined the Party, didn't you? That is something you did not tell us in your direct examination. You became a member of the Party again, didn't you?
A Yes, The Party membership was suspended during the time I was with the Navy, and again it was renewed when I came to the SS-Verfuegungstruppe.
Q You retained your Party number which was somewhere in the two-thousand five-hundred, didn't you?
A Yes, I maintained the same Party number.
Q Do you remember that it was in the two-thousand five-hundreds; two-thousand five-hundred and seventy--two?
A Yes, I can recall that.
MR. ROBBINS: I have no further questions.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I did not hear the last answer. Will the witness, perhaps, tell us his Party number once more.
THE PRESIDENT: 2,572.
MR. ROBBINS: As a matter of fact - -
THE WITNESS: 2,572,143.
MR. ROBBINS: Two million five hundred thousand, is that right?
THE WITNESS: 2,572,173. I just happened to have it before me.
THE PRESIDENT: That is pretty close.
DR. FICHT: Dr. Ficht for the defendant Klein.
BY DR. FICHT:
Q. Witness, I only went to ask you a few questions with regard to the auditing report which allegedly was the reason for the dismissal of the defendant Klein. I now would like to ask you the following questions. Do you know that at the time when the auditing work was ordered with regard to the business of Klein, an investigation was under way against Klein because his sister had been arrested by the Gestapo because she had made hostile statements towards the State, and, Klein at the time had looked at the files of his sister with the Gestapo, which he was not authorized to do?
AAt the time when the auditing work was carried out, sofar as I recall, I did not know anything about all these facts.
Q Do you know that Klein himself requested this auditing to be done?
A Yes. I can even tell you from my recollection that the auditing department was asked by me whether any personnel was available in order to carry out this auditing work, because Klein as a lieutenant in the reserves wanted to go to the front. I can remember that exactly. Before going to the front, he wanted to be able to justify himself as office chief of the auditing department.
However, the department did not have an auditor available at that time who could have given him a proper certificate at the time; to say that he had performed his business duties properly would have required a duly appointed auditor. Inspite of this, however, Klein insisted that the auditing should be carried out.
Q Witness, could I sum up and say, that he requested an audit to be carried out at the time when it was determined that he had to go to the front?
AAt least, he wanted to go to the front. Whether it was quite certain he would go to the front I can not say. However, I knew he was to go to the front.
Q And is it correct he made an application at the time that an auditing was to be carried out?
A Yes, he made a request that an audit was to be carried out, and the auditing work was carried out in this scope of examination of official documents of the organization.
Q You have stated in answer to a question by the Prosecution that the irregularities which were discovered had resulted, in the first place, from negligence of the employees for whom Klein, as office chief, was responsible. Can you tell us of what these irregularities consisted in detail?
A Yes, I can tell you that. The auditor had found out that, for example, the stores showed certain deficiencies. It was very clumsily established and something was wrong with the index file. In particular it was not up to date. In construction expenses for dwelling houses too much money had been spent in excess of the budget.
Q Witness, may I ask you one more question about the general question of the stores. Were there any instructions in effect for the W offices in just what way the stores were to be administered?
A No, there were no matters which dealt with commercial law. That wasn't the case at all. Here the auditor had to make the decision according to his own judgment and I can state that here it was primarily the fault of Klein's colleagues who were subordinated to him.
Q That is sufficient for me. I have no further questions.
DR. FROESCHMANN (Counsel for the defendant Mummenthey):
Q I only have two questions to ask the witness as a result of the cross examination. Witness, the cross examination has shown that you visited Auschwitz. Did you see the enterprises of the DEST there?
A Yes, I saw them.
Q Of what did these enterprises, plants, and workshops consist?
A May I point out that I visited Auschwitz in the winter time. I looked at the gravel works and they were far away from the camp -- in a river bed. The plants were located near the river bed. Therefore, they didn't actually have workshops. However I saw how all the machines that brought up the gravel were laid up over the winter time to be used again when the warmer season started. I remember that.
Q Therefore, they removed the gravel from the river bed?
A Yes.
Q Did you see anything or did you hear anything about the fact that the DEST in Auschwitz had a sand pit or a gravel pit?
A No.
Q Did you talk with the plant manager Rupprecht there?
A Yes, I met him on that occasion.
Q What impression did you gain of Rupprecht?
A I gained a rather good impression of Rupprecht not only because he had been praised by Mummenthey but because I could see from my auditing work what his character was and that he was a decent man. That is the impression I gained at that time.
Q Did you see any inmates who worked in enterprise DEST?
A No. This workshop was not in operation. I only saw the office barracks at the time.
Q Was this barracks the office of the DEST?
A This barracks contained the offices of this enterprise.
Q In this office of the DEST were there any female Jewish inmates?
A Yes, I can remember that.
Q Did you meet these Jewish inmates later on, and if, yes, where?
A Yes. I and Mummenthey met them again later on. Whether Mummenthey saw them before I don't know. I don't think so. I was there without being accompanied by Mummenthey.
Q I am not referring to that time but later on and in order to refresh your memory I want to mention the name of Neurolav to you. Can you remember having seen these inmates again there?
A Yes. I was informed about that and I wanted to continue and say that at the time in Auschwitz I was all by myself when I saw these Jewish inmates, approximately February 1945. It was on a Sunday and I happened to be present at Neurolav. Mummenthey and I had several discussion and I was on the way back. Because transportation conditions were so bad there I accompanied Mummenthey and we saw these female Jewish inmates again. As far as I remember there were only two. Do you want me to explain the details?
Q No, that is not necessary. I have one final question in this connection. Were those female Jewish inmates at liberty at Neurolav?
A Yes they were at liberty - could go around and wore civilian clothes. They had arrived together with Rupprecht whom I saw again there. He had arrived from Auschwitz and were evacuated from the approach of the Russian Army to find a new place of work if possible at all. We also talked to them about the question; it was not very nice since other civilians were present.
Q And now my second question. As a matter of fact I have only two more questions I will ask you. In Document Book 19 of the Prosecution Document Book we find on page 65 Document NO 1271 which the Prosecution has shown you today. It is Exhibit 491. This is a report on Osti by Fischer. Now I only want to ask you one question. What is the meaning of the words in this report "through SS-obersturmbannfuehrer Mummenthey in April 1944 I received the order to carry out the auditing of the Osti". Have you found this phrase?
A Yes.
Q How can these words "through ss-obersturmbannfuchrer Mummenthey" be understood or how can you explain these words?
A I think that these words mean that the auditor Fischer had been ordered by Mummenthey to carry out auditing work. I have to assume that. And that he was given leave in order to carry out this work. Perhaps this was only a gesture to express this because Mummenthey could not order him to carry out any auditing work.
Q May I elaborate somewhat on your last answer or you meaning telling me that Mummenthey could not give Fischer an order to audit Osti?
A Yes, just put him probably on leave status.
DR. FRACHT (Counsel for defendant Hohberg):
Q Witness, in the direct examination you were asked why being in the WVHA you did not become the director of the concern - but that you became chief of Staff W - and your answer to that question was that you became chief of Staff W because you were SS officer with senior rank in that office.
Can you still remember that answer you made?
A I have given so many answers today that I can't remember the exact text.
Q I jotted down your answer at the time and I am reading it to you once more now literally "Do you mean the most Senior officer in the Staff? Yes. " Your defense counsel asked you "Why were you not put in charge of auditing department. He asked why you became chief of Staff W instead and you answered "I become chief of Staff W because I was SS officer with the senior rank."
A Yes, that is correct. That is what I said. I was Senior officer in the Staff. However, this wasn't the reason I was appointed chief. That is another question.
Q In some other connection you stated that by virtue of your military position as chief of Staff W you had the possibility to place yourself between Pohl and the W officers.
A I was besides Pohl and in auditing work I had a collective assignment and with this collective assignment I could carry out my work in the auditing department.
Q I didn't want you to tell me that, witness. I wanted you to tell me whether you had the possibility to place yourself between Pohl and the W offices by virtue of your military position, as you stated at the time, as chief of Staff W?
A What do you mean, what connection? By virtue of military order?
Q Witness, I mean that you could interfere at all. In this trial you tell us that Staff W was not a superior agency but that it was on the same level as other W offices. However, in another connection you stated you had the possibility of being in military position as chief of Staff W to place yourself between Pohl and the remaining W offices?
A I could give that order by virtue of my rank. However, I don't know if the order was carried out; after all the business management was subjected to the provisions of Commercial Law.
Q As I put that to you now I only wanted to know whether I understood your testimony correctly, if I draw the conclusion from that that the chief of Staff W had a military function on in your case an SS function and consequently for the position of Chief of Staff W the prerequisite was the membership in the SS or the Party and he had to be an SS officer.
A: Yes; in my case it was so that I was an SS officer and I became the Chief of Staff W.
Q: I then have one further question which I would like you to clarify. Your last rank which you held was an Oberfuehrer in the SS.
A: That is correct.
Q: Now, according to military law you were then the superior, not the disciplinary superior, but the superior of all persons who held a rank lower than you had?
A: No, that is not correct.
Q: Are there any other regulations in the SS than those which apply in the army?
A: No. The company commander of the 72nd Company, since he has a higher rank than the lieutenant of the 73rd, isn't therefore his superior. After all, there must be some relation and my relation was the staff. You must not forget that Commercial law and official affairs easily overlap in this case.
Q: Witness, in this connection I am not interested in commercial law. I am only interested in whether you, in the military field, as Oberfuehrer, you were the superior of an Obersturmbannfuehrer. From the military point of view.
A: No, I just held a higher rank. I just held a higher rank.
DR. FRACHT : I was a soldier too, and my opinion differs from yours.
I have no further questions.
DR. FRITSCH (for the defendant Baler): Your Honor, I believe that the last question has remained so fresh in our memory that I can begin with it now.
BY DR. FRITSCH:
Q: Witness, if a Major meets a non-commissioned officer in the street, and this NCO does not salute him, what can the major do in that case?
A: Well, he will put him on the spot, and he will tell him off; however, he cannot punish him if he is not his disciplinary superior. He has to address himself to the disciplinary superior of that soldier.
Q: Was the WVHA a military unit?
A: Yes, on the whole.
Q: Could you compare it with a regiment or a battalion of a company?
A: No.
Q: Well, what kind of a unit was it?
A: It was a ministerial agency. It consisted of various agencies whose members were civilian personnel and soldiers.
Q: And because this organization was established in that manner, and because it was not a military unit -in order to maintain military discipline just what was established there?
A: Well, a staff company was established.
Q: What was that, exactly?
A: As you have already said, that seems to be the most appropriate expression -- that was the company. Here the company commander had disciplinary authority over all members of that company.
Q: And was the military point of view represented in that organization?
A: Yes, that is how it was.
Q: If you -- let's use an example: Let us say that your auditor "X" at the same time happens to be a non-commissioned officer.
You order him to carry out some auditing work with one of the enterprises, and he refuses to do that. Could you charge him as a soldier?
A: Since I did not have a disciplinary authority over him I could not do that.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Fritsch, just to show you we understand all about this - can I give you an illustration. Suppose I ask the soldier who is standing at the door to lock the door, and he refuses to do it, and he lots people in. He's disobeyed the Court's order. But I cannot discipline him. I must send him to his commanding officer to be disciplined, is that what you are trying to say?
DR. FRITSCH: Yes, your Honor, that's it, exactly.
THE PRESIDENT: We understood that at a quarter after two.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I understood it too; however, it was doubted that the witness, since he held the rank of a colonel, could not give any orders to the soldiers there. I shall, therefore, leave this subject. And now I would like to come to another question.
MR. ROBBINS: If I may point out, your Honor, - as the witness said, the matter of giving orders to someone is quite different from the matter of discipline. I don't think the counsel's statement is entirely correct.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I am awfully sorry, I believe we can do this in two brief sentences. The major in the street, could he order the non-commissioned officer to salute him?
A: Yes, he could order him to dot that.
Q: That was the first sentence. And if he did not salute him?
A: Then the question arose, who could exercise disciplinary authority, and the major had to report him to his commanding officer.
DR. FRITSCH: I believe that has exhausted the subject.
Q: I am coming to a last question, finally. How much mail passed through Staff W every day, that is to say, how much mail passed through your hands?
A: Eighty to one hundred letters and post cards.
Q: The witness Dr. Karoli has explained to us how this mail was distributed.
A: Yes, it is correct. I distributed it.
Q: Did this mail come to you with the stamp stating it had been received, or did you first have to open this mail?
A: It came to me with the entry stamp after it had been opened already.
Q: Did you read this mail? Did you read it with regard to the subject it was dealing with, or did you just glance at the mail in order to pass it on to the competent specialist who would handle it?
A: It was impossible for me to read everything. It was only possible since we did not have much personnel, and as the war went on it was impossible for us to read everything.
Q: What did you do with the mail about which you wanted a report? Just how did you put any special marks on it?
A: Some mark was put on it. Either I wrote down inquiry, in order to inform myself further about the matter or I would pass the matter on to somebody who would put some mark on it.
However, for the most part it was handled in such a way because we were a very small agency, and I myself would turn to the competent persons who were interested in that mail.
Q: Just how much mail did you put aside so that you would sign it yourself every day?
A: Approximately half of what arrived. After all, there were some small matters among this mail and they were signed by others.
Q: Who else was authorized to sign?
A: The individual specialists in their fields.
Q: Approximately how many were there?
A: Three.
Q: You therefore want to say that you do not know just what mail you worked on individually, and you could not see everything that was sent out?
A: No, I could not see all the mail which was dispatched.
Q: Witness, I am now referring again to some of the documents which were put to you, and most of them speak for themselves. However, I would like to refer once more to the Schieferoel case. I don't want to got into many details there, but I can state that only the Tribunal, of all people concerned, has described and estimated the matter correctly. However, here we are dealing with the question of your veracity. You have been shown a photostatic copy, and during the cross examination by the prosecutor I was unable to hear whether it has been clearly determined whether the mark which is located on this photostatic copy are your initials or were they just the initials of somebody else?
A: The letter "P" stands for Pohl, and it does not mean Baier. The second letter is the day - it is a 13, and does not represent a "B". Below that, we have the month. I believe that this question can be clarified by asking the defendant Pohl about the matter.
Q: It is important for me, witness, that you have never seen the photostatic copy of the document, is that correct?
A: After having thought the matter over once more I can affirm under oath that I have not seen this document before.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Witness, please take a look at Document 4002, Exhibit 497. Will you please take a look at it once more. The Prosecutor asked you about this telegram, I beg your pardon, the telegram is the Document No. 3839. However, it is Exhibit 594. It is one of the documents which was submitted today. First of all, I have one question. Have you found it?
A No.
Q This firm, Getewent, is known to you, isn't it?
A Yes.
Q. Was it part of the DWB?
A No, it did not belong to the DWB.
Q Did it belong to the WVHA?
A No, it did not belong to the WVHA.
Q Do you know to what it belonged?
A It belonged to the Reich Ministry of Economics.
Q Why did you handle this matter at all if the firm actually did not belong to the WVHA nor the DWB?
A Pohl was personally included in that matter, but I don't know exactly what authority he had.
Q You, however, wrote a letter in this matter. It has been submitted.
A Yes, that is correct.
Q By whose order did you write this letter?
A I wrote it by order of the Defendant Pohl.
Q Were you ordered to write this letter during the conference of the 18th of October 1944? That is the letter, that is the date which is on the letter in question.
A Yes, probably.
Q Witness, just what did this telegram state; what was the meaning of it?
A The telegram states - I can only take it from the text here first, that the Commander of the concentration camp Gross-Rosen apparently is stationed elsewhere and that there is a possibility to contact him Court No. II, Case No. 4.over his radio station.
Q Contact with whom, with the commander?
A No, the contact from the commander to the DWB; contact between the commander and the Getewent.
Q Therefore was the contact to be established between you and the concentration camp Gross Rosen in the Getewent affair?
A No. Here it was only to be announced that there was a possibility in March of 1945 to somehow establish contact with the Getewent Company. It couldn't be done by telephone any more.
Q Why wasn't it possible?
A Since the front line became closer, hence the enemy was approaching, therefore we could only use radio teletype.
Q Witness, Mr. Robbins asked you about the various concentration camps which you visited. From the way in which he asked the questions I must assume that it still has not been clarified to what extent the enterprises are to be separated from the protective custody camps. I am now speaking with regard to their location. You were asked, I think with regard to Auschwitz, whether you couldn't notice the smell there or the smoke, whether you couldn't assume from that that a crematorium existed there. Can you tell us just how far the enterprise that you visited there was located from the actual concentration camp?
A The work shop of the DEST was several kilometers away from the camp. The work shop of the DAW which I visited was closer to the camp, near the camp limits. However, you still couldn't see the camp itself there. There must have been a distance of about five to six hundred meters. There was a fence there, and, however, you couldn't actually see the camp.
Q Witness, I only have one more question on that subject. At the present time, your answers in this series of questions, it became evident that you were in Dachau more often than you visited other places. That was in the time when you were already in Staff W. Can you give me any reasons why you went to Dachau so frequently?
A Yes, the reason was that my family was residing at Dachau.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Your family continued residing at Dachau when you went to Berlin?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Witness, unfortunately I have to refer once more to the title of office chief. I have one question in this connection. I must assume that is known here, that in Germany, in Government organizations, with regard to the deputizing, we had two different concepts. Could you name and explain those two concepts to me as far as the signing matters were concerned?
A With regard to the signing of documents there were two ways of deputizing. There is no other German word for it. We had I.A. and I.V., "By order of", and "Deputizing for".
Q What was used usually to express the more important matter of deputizing?
A The I.V., In Vertretung. "Deputizing for" was the stronger expression while I.A. was the weaker one.
Q Who signed with the letters I.V.? Could many people sign their letters with I.V.?
A Only one person could sign the letters I.V. That was the official deputy.
Q And the small specialist?
A The small specialist could be appointed to sign I.A. That means, "By order of."
Q You were asked, witness, whether the office chiefs were the deputies of Pohl. If we interpret the term of deputy according to the two possibilities of signing a letter, would you then say that you were Pohl's deputy?
A No.
Q What position did you hold then?
A If we take the signatures I always signed I.A. That means, "By order of". That is to say I was empowered to sign that way.
Q Please take a look at document, Exhibit 596, Document 3830, which you have been shown today in the course of your cross-examination.
A I don't have it here.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Witness, in the direct examination we clarified the question yesterday for what purpose you were assigned to the WVHA. You stated that technical auditing matters were the reasons for it and you were only used to work on financial and auditing matters. Does this document state anything different?
A Please hand me the document because I don't have it before me. Yes, Points 1 to 6, under Roman I limit this field in that sense.
Q If you look at Points 1 to 6, or if you look at the document, does it become evident that you had the authority to make certain decisions about the things which are specified in Points 1 to 6 and were examined in that letter?
A No, that is not expressed here. I know that in such cases already, in order to orient myself, I fundamentally requested Pohl's permission whenever something like that occurred.
Q Please read Paragraph 2 to us.
A "All requests are to be addressed to me through Chief W."
Q I wanted to ask you, witness, whether you had the authority to make decisions, or whether you could only make certain recommendations?
A I only could make certain recommendations, because Article 2 confirms that.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I am afraid that I won't be able to complete my re-examination now.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you prefer to continue in the morning?
DP. FRITSCH: Yes, I would prefer that, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, we will recess until,tomorrow morning.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until nine-thirty tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 25 July 1947, at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Oswald Pohl, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 25 July 1947, 0930, Judge Toms presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal No. 2. Military Tribunal No. 2 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will show that the defendant Kiefer is absent from this session of court because of illness. The trial will proceed in his absence.
HANS BAIER - Resumed RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. FRITSCH (Counsel for defendant Baier):
Q. Witness, I shall refer once more briefly to the affair Schieferoel. I only want to refer to the file mark in that connection. It is in Document NO-4076: this is Exhibit 589. I am going to show you this file note once more, and I want to ask you the following question. Were you particularly obligated to keep secrecy?
A. I did not have any special obligation to keep secret, and I did not have that particular function.
Q. Were you able to look into the files which Pohl kept and which were classified as secret?
A. No.
Q. Well, just what brought about this file note. You didn't make any statement about that when you were cross-examined by the prosecution.
A. Of course, I can't remember all the details any more today, however, but I assume that Pohl dictated this secret report which was addressed to Himmler, and since this report was classified as secret he kept it in a special place in his office so that it could be seen in the "general file". That a secret report had been submitted by Pohl in that matter he probably told me when I came to see him about this matter so I could compile an index for the file in which all this work was kept.
Q. Did you then include this special report in the general report, or what happened to it?
A. I probably turned it over to my secretary, and the secretary probably passed on the note for the competent specialist in this matter, In this case it was put into the files.
Q. Witness, in the cross examination it has apparently been assumed that this secret note, or that this secret report, was a report in matters concerning inmates. What can you tell us about that?
A. I didn't even see this secret report myself. Furthermore, I determined that the Schieferoel CMBH actually did not run its own enterprises yet. Therefore, no inmates could have been employed in that enterprise, consequently Pohl could not have compiled a secret report about inmate questions. In all probability this was the new procedure which was to be followed as far as the production of slate oil was concerned. It was to be produced from German slate. It is natural that such a secret process could not be announced to everybody.
Q. Witness, and now I want to ask you another question. The prosecution has asked you in the cross examination a question with regard to the business order. This business order was provided with a new document number. It was submitted as Document 3170.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I don't know whether it received any exhibit number. I forgot to ask about this matter this morning, and Mr. Robbins was a little bit too fast for me yesterday.
It is 595, Your Honor.
At the same time Exhibit 597 was submitted, which was Document 3829. It was a statement with regard to the authority of the office chiefs.
BY DR. FRITSCH:
Q. That is a document which you described as having originated with Dr. Hoffmann; however, it was not signed. I am interested in only one question in that respect. Can you tell me whether you, yourself, in any way caused Dr. Hoffmann to compile this draft? Have you thought over this matter, perhaps, in the meantime?