Our Trusteeship Agency, therefore, decided one day to issue a regulation concerning debts and demands, and that regulation after a long period of preparation was passed by the ministries concerned.
Q. Excuse me, Herr Winkler. All I am interested in is this: You named this sum, 15 or 20 billions, and you said it was only according to your estimation. Please tell me simply this: Was this active capital or was some of it used for something else?
A. No, this was the active capital.
Q. Then, very briefly, let us clear up this point of larceny which has been touched upon here. I would like to ask you to give me your reactions to an example which I shall now formulate. Let us assume that in the Warthegau, you had a shoe shop, the owner of which had fled the country. Now, what did your agency do with that shop?
A. It was seized just like any other enterprise, and if it was possible to furnish it with new goods, since you couldn't get them,anyway, it was sold out; that is to say the goods would have been sold on the basis of the ration allowances issued by other agencies. The population would have received the goods, and once this had been done, the shop would have to close down.
Q. Dr. Winkler, you were a little too fast. That shop was found, there were goods there, but no owner. Now, was somebody appointed to run the shop, or was it done bureaucratically by a department, as you told us just now?
A. No, no, of course, an expert, trained salesman,-a man or woman was appointed as an administrator on a com mission basis, or as we did not have a sufficient number of these people, the administrator looked after a number of such enterprises and hired employees who knew their business.
Q. And now when he had several enterprises, what was his name, his designation?
A. Administrator general, administrator general, yes.
Q. And a man like that was Pohl, for Instance, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you very much.
DR. FRITSCH: No further question.
MR. KEMPNER: Your Honors, I would like to straighten out the record with a few questions which came up. In the meantime I have received the record of my previous conversation with Herr Winkler. May I ask some of the questions just as I asked him that other time in German. Do you have any objection?
THE PRESIDENT: How's that now?
MR. KEMPNER: May I ask some of the questions in order to avoid any translation difficulties just in the German as I asked them before of him.
THE PRESIDENT: I guess that will work. Let's try it.
RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. KEMPNER:
Q. Did you tell me at the time that you were deeply shocked?
A. Yes.
Q. When was that?
A. That was about as early as I gained my first impression, which was my most moving one when I visited the Ghetto of Lodz.
Q. What did you do in the Ghetto of Lodz?
A. There I wanted to inspect the work done by the inmates there. I was led around there, and I saw that only a few people were there.
Q. Where were the other people?
A. Well, I put a question to the man who was my guide where the others were because formerly they had more, and I was told they had gone away.
Q. What did you think, where could they have gone to, Heaven or hell?
A. I thought that something wrong had been done here, and I thought that they probably had gone to Heaven.
Q. You knew that these poor people were dead, did you?
A. No, I did not know that, but unhappily I had to assume so.
Q. That was in what year?
A. It must have been about 1942.
Q. And the SS were your guides there, were they?
A. No, no, I was never led around by the SS. It was a private employee of the agency, of the Trusteeship Agency.
Q. But you knew that the Ghetto was administered by the SS?
A. I saw SS people there, but I didn't know too many details.
Q. Were they there on a holiday or to administer the camp?
A. To guard the camp.
Q. To guard the camp?
A. Yes, to guard the camp.
Q. And that was the same SS to whom you had left a number of properties which you had seized in order to have them administered?
DR. GAWLICK: May it please the Court, I raise an objection here. The cross examination is over, and the recross can only concern itself with questions which refer to my redirect examination.
MR. KEMPNER: I think that is the general topic which was covered by both of the defense counsel, the knowledge whether this was the same SS or whether there were two SS organizations, the one in concentration camp guards and the others took over such property. I think that this is pertinent at the present moment.
DR. GAWLICK: If Your Honors, please the witness is in no position to answer the questions of whether that was the same SS, since he was not a member of the SS.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, he can say that if he wants to. He probably will now. You don't know whether he can answer the question, do you?
DR. GAWLICK: First of all, I have raised the objection that this recross examination must not discuss a totally different topic from the one used in the redirect examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Gawlick, if you and the other defense counsel want to invoke this ruling, I think you will regret it. You have been given a very free hand, and, of course, have violated the rule that you are now invoking. You don't want us to close down and be more strict do you?
DR. GAWLICK: I think that I shall withdraw my objection, if Your Honors, please.
BY DR. KEMPNER:
Q. Were there two SS organizations in Germany or one?
A. There were two SS organizations, the Allgemeine-SS and the Waffen-SS.
Q. Were the people who administered concentration camps members of the same SS as Herr Bobermin?
A. I assume so, yes.
Q. One final question to you, Herr Winkler, and please give me your answer to the best of your knowledge and belief. Do you regret today that you were the administrator of stolen property, by the order of other people? Answer with yes or no.
A. May I ask the Court's indulgence if I give a long answer? I would like to give the Tribunal an explanation how it happened that I was involved in these things.
Q. First of all, I want to know whether you regret those awful things?
A. Yes, I regret them deeply since they came to my knowledge.
MR. KEMPNER: That is all I have to ask.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. GAWLICK:
Q. Witness, please give us the statements which you wanted to make.
A. In order to supplement my curriculum vitae, I want to add that when I lost my job as Buergermeister of Graudenz in 1919, accident came to help me, when I was appointed a democrat deputy; the Reich government of the day asked me to consult with them and advise them about the economic conditions in my native province.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Is this really going back to the Trojan war?
A. No, I shall be extremely brief.
DR. GAWLICK: May it please the Court, my present question has been brought about by the Prosecution, whether the witness regrets all these things. He must give us reason. Had this question not been put, I would not have asked it either.
THE PRESIDENT: It is another instance of two wrongs not making a right, yours and the Prosecution's.Let's take the witness' promise that he will be very brief.
WITNESS: In my work as a custodian it seems I was fairly successful, and nineteen chancellors of Germany -- nineteen different German governments prior to Hitler's government -- used my services in that capacity. Hitler was the twentieth chancellor of Germany, and on the day after the election he had me asked by State-Secretary Funk whether I wished to continue my work. I pointed out, first, that I was his opponent, that I had said so publicly, and that, therefore, I could not give my answer just like that. When the question was repeated I said that I wished to continue my present field of work. He reported my affirmative answer to Goering -- which was to me the best proof that the Gestapo would have come and fetched me if I had declined. I then worked on the same problems which I had dealt with before; that is to say, I looked after newspaper publication houses, and thus it came about that I became involved with the problem which Dr. Kempner has referred to: the Ullstein firm.
I had too get used to this work slowly and gradually, and like many other Germans, I had no idea where this new German government would finally lead us. Therefore, I had to accept Goering's order in 1939 - and this is what I want to state to the Court solemnly: throughout the years I have attempted to the best of my belief and knowledge, and by not sparing my own person -- I did not receive any fees for my work -- to do my duty as a citizen of the Reich. When I obtained knowledge of the excesses committed by the government, I deeply regretted that I had been involved in this -- and please believe me, I would give anything if it had not been my duty to do these things. I did them, and I would ask the Tribunal to bear in mind that without knowing how I was being abused I was involved in these things. I regret it deeply, but I could not do otherwise, so help me God.
Q Did you have the feeling at the time when you did this work that you were doing something wicked?
A Certainly not, in the first years. Only after I heard about these things which should not have happened -
THE PRESIDENT: No further questions, Dr. Gawlik.
DR. GAWLIK: I wanted to ask about the membership in the SS.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all right.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q You also said that Dr. Bobermin had belonged to the same SS which guarded the concentration camps. Do you know to what SS Dr. Bobermin belonged?
A No, I don't know that. I simply assumed because it wasn't the Waffen-SS, and the only difference made by me was between the Allgemeine SS and the Waffen-SS, that Herr Bobermin probably belonged to the Allgemeine SS.
Q Now, if I tell you that Bobermin was a member of the Waffen SS -
A Then I was mistaken.
Q If I also tell you that the concentration camps were guarded by the Death Head Unit and independent units, do you know anything about that?
A I am afraid I don't know all these details about the SS. I didn't bother about them.
Q Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: If there are no other questions of this witness, he may be excused.
(Witness excused.)
DR. GAWLIK: With the permission of the Tribunal, I should like to ask the defendant Dr. Bobermin to take the witness stand.
DR. FICHT (Counsel for defendant Klein): May it please the Court, may I make a formal application to this Court? I request that the defendant Klein be excused from tomorrow's session throughout the day in order to prepare his defense.
THE PRESIDENT: He may be excused, Dr. Ficht.
HANS BOBERMIN, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE MUSMANNO:
Q Will you please raise your right hand and repeat after me? I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(Witness repeated the oath)
You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. GAWLIK (Counsel for the defendants Volk and Bobermin):
Q Is your name Hans Bobermin?
A My name is Johannes Karl Bernhard Bobermin - I am usually called Hans.
Q On 16 January 1947 you gave an affidavit, and there you described your curriculum vitae. This is Document NO-1566, Exhibit 19, in Volume One, on page 111 of the German document book.
Have you anything to add to these statements?
A I should like to add a few sentences, yes. My youth was very difficult and hard. My father died when I was very young. The first World War and the difficult years after it, the revolutions lasting for years, struggles and wars in the border areas, inflation and unemployment -- did not give me the peace and quietness which I would have needed for my studies. As the profession of my life I chose to work in the realm of economics and social science. I did not regard economy from the point of view of the individual owner; that is to say, from the point of view of the business man, but with the eyes of a national economist.
My burning desire was to be able to study abroad for a while, but this could not be fulfilled. Only very much later, when I became an assistant for foreign relations in the German municipal organization, was I able to make several trips to western European countries. In Germany, I and several other colleagues met men of all shades of political opinions from all parts of the globe on those occasions.
The exchange of technical ideas created human relations which have survived even this war. Throughout my life I completely concentrated on my work. In 1938 I had achieved the aim of my life; namely, to be in an important and secure position as an executive official. Since the outbreak of the war this position was destroyed again, for the second time.
As far as my family life is concerned, I should like to add that I am a married man, and have three children aged between seven and twelve years.
Q You were with the German municipal organization before the war?
A Yes.
Q What was that organization?
A The German municipal organization was an association of the German cities, villages, counties and townships.
Q What was its task?
A It was an association for technical experts only to advise the municipalities in carrying out their duties. Also, it had the task, by forming communities and expert committees, to promote the exchange of experiences between the organizations which were working on a selfadministrative basis.
Q Was the German municipal organization a party organization or did it belong to any of its formations?
A No.
Q Can you give us brief reasons for that?
A The German municipal organization was a corporation under public law by virtue of a German Reich law. Its members could only be municipalities. It was under the supervision of the Reich Ministry of the Interior.
Q In your affidavit you further stated that in February, 1938, you became the manager of German advertising in large cities. What was that organization?
A That was a company which belonged to about 30 big German cities. Its task was to investigate possibilities for advertising and publicity within the German towns and cities and to exploit them commercially in the interest of the communities.
Q How long were you with this advertising organization?
A Until war broke out.
Q Why did you discontinue your work there?
A I was obliged to do emergency service with the Economic Office at Frankfurt on Main.
Q What did you do there?
A My task was to supervise the agencies which issued ration books for textiles and commercial soap and to supervise the issuing of the ration cards. I also supervised the issuing of the first German clothing ration card in the area of Frankfurt on Main.
Q How long were you with that rationing office?
A Until 31 December 1939.
Q What did you do after that?
A On 2 January 1940 I began my duties with the Main Office, Budget and Economy.
Q Please look at your affidavit once more of 16 January 1947. I It's Document NO-1566, Exhibit 19. In that affidavit you have stated that you entered. into your service with the Main Office Budget and Building. Which is correct?
A I was called up to the Main Administrative Office SS, but I was immediately ordered to report to the Main Office, Budget and Economy. I was kept formally on the list of the first office, but actually I served with the second one.
Q How did your statements in the affidavit come about?
A The Administrative Office of the SS was housed in the same building as the Main Office Budget and Building, and I thought it was one and the same thing. I did not enter into too many details of the organizations of all these offices, because I had my definite sphere of task outside the rest of them.
Q Did you enter into this new activity voluntarily?
A No, I was called up. I was drafted into the Waffen SS by the Army District Office.
Q Did this order have the same effect as an order which calls you up into the Wehrmacht?
A Yes.
Q Did you have a chance not to comply with the order?
A No, that would have amounted to my becoming a conscientious objector and I would have been dealt with accordingly.
Q Can you make a statement on why you were allocated to the Administrative Service and not the Navy or the Army?
A I was allocated to the Administrative Service because I had expert training, because I was of the right age, and because of my physical condition. I was not fit for general military service, according to my medical examination.
Q In what agency of the Main Office did you find your first employment?
A In the Main Department, III-A/4.
Q I am putting to you Document NO-620, which is Exhibit 33 on page 63 in Volume II, on page 54 of the English Document Book. This document describes the organization of the Main Office. Is it correct as far as it names the various offices, their officers, and so on?
A May I ask you to hand me that document. I haven't got it here. Do you mean the top document, Dr. Gawlik?
Q Yes.
A I am not in a position to see with any certainty whether it is correct. The organization of the Main Office was of no particular interest to me at any time. I was interested only in my own sphere of duties. All I can say, therefore, is that the Main Department III A/4 is listed here quite correctly as part of Office III-A. I believe we should probably say more about this document later on, on the subject of who directed this department.
Q What were the tasks of Department III-A/ 4?
A III-A/4 had the task of supplying the administration for the brick works seized by the Main Trusteeship Agency for the East in the newly acquired German territories of the East.
Q Where were these brick works situated?
A They were situated in the area of Ziechenau which is the area which adjoins Eastern Prussia to the South. It was formerly known as the Province of Posen, which was now called Warthegau and in Eastern Upper Silesia, an area which consisted of the former German Upper Silesia and part of the area which formerly had belonged to Austria.
Q Was that area part of the German Reich?
A Do you mean when we took over?
Q Yes.
A Yes.
Q Since when was it German?
A Since the end of 1939.
Q How was it that these districts were incorporated into the German Reich?
A By virtue of a Reich law.
Q Did the other countries recognize the new demarkation line?
A I know for certain that Russia did. It was announced at the time officially that what was described as the Russo-German frontier of mutual interests had been formed and that Germany within the areas which had been allocated could draw the demarkation line. Also I can remember that the adjoining states, the Baltic border states, Finland, Hungary, Slovakia, and the so-called Axis states, that is to say, Japan and Italy, had approved the new line of demarkation.
Q What was your opinion about the area formulated by Reich law and recognized by other states, especially Russia?
AAs a German citizen and not as a legal expert I had to recognize that what my country had done was legally justifiable. I held this opinion, because the adjoining states agreed to the new line of demarkation. That is the reason why I thought that this new line of demarkation was without any doubt beyond reproach and that I could never be called to account for a political action of that nature.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Do you mean that Japan didn't care what Russia and Germany did with Poland?
A I did not necessarily want to say that, if Your Honor please. I believe that the agreement was very definite.
Q Well, definite with everybody. Everybody was pleased with it, except Poland.
A Poland certainly was not in agreement with it.
Q And Poland was the only one that was being cut.
A Yes, that is quite true.
Q So everybody was happy, except the victim.
A Yes, quite so, Your Honor. We ourselves experienced that once.
THE PRESIDENT: Shall we sit here for two minutes or shall we stop now?
DR. GAWLIK: I would ask that we take the recess now, please.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until August 8, 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 Nurnberg, Germany, on 8 August 1947, 0930 - 1630, Justice Robert M. Toms, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Please take your seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will indicate that the Defendant Klein is absent from this session of Court by request of his counsel and by leave of court.
DR. HANNS B0BERMIN - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION - (Continued) BY.
DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Following up the question which the President put yesterday, I would like to put a question to you, witness. Didn't you think, about the fact that when the lines of demarkation were drawn Poland was not asked to join?
A. I would like to say this about that subject. I have already testified that the new lines of demarkation in the East were drawn at that time on the basis of a treaty with Russia. This is the RussoGerman Treaty of 28 September 1939, published in the Official Gazette in 1940 and also the usual German newspapers. The preamble of that agreement says roughly this: "The Polish State has been dissolved. No administration exists, and the army has been beaten. For that reason the two states have decided on the following changes within the Polish State." Then the Treaty also specifies that no third states must interfere. If they did this would be without legal effect. The Treaty was signed on behalf of Germany by Secretary of State Weizsaecker, and for the Russians by Molotov.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. What was the date of that Treaty?
A. The 28th of September, 1939, if your Honors please.
Q. Was that also the non-aggression agreement?
A. Do you mean after the non-aggression past or whether it was the same pact?
Q. The non-aggression treaty between Germany and Russia.
A. That, I think, was concluded before the war in August.
Q. In August, about a month before this one?
A. Quite so, your Honor.
Q. And that lasted until the 29th of September?
A. This was a new treaty, Mr. President, which did not rescind the original one. I believe that the representative of the Russian State who signed this treaty was the same man who later on signed the London Agreement and the Potsdam Agreement. But this matter which really belongs on the level of international politics in which I have played no part, I explained only because I, as an ordinary citizen , did my moral duty in order to examine what I had to do as a human person who is faced with an apparently new task. Any traditional investigation of this point concerning the legality of these international disputes was not within my competence.
Q. Well, nevertheless you are quoting a solemn treaty to this Tribunal in justification of Germany's conduct and your conduct in Poland?
A. I can only answer for my own personal conduct, Mr. President.
Q. All right.
A. I cannot answer for Germany's policy. That, I think, is up to other men.
Q. But you are saying to us, whatever was done in Poland, and whatever you did in Poland was legally justified by the Treaty of September, 1939?
A. From a formally legal point of view, yes, Mr. President.
Q. The invasion of Russia in violation of the Treaty of August, 1939. You can't think of a treaty which justifies that, can you?
A. No, Mr. President, but here we are concerned with an entirely different set of facts.
Q. I know. You don't want to talk about that, you mean.
A. Yes, certainly I would, Mr. President, but this is not connected with what I have been charged here.
Q. You don't see any connection?
A. No, I don't see any connection. We are concerned with the seizure of brick works in the former Polish area, but that has nothing to do with aggressive war against Russia surely.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, perhaps the relationship will develop as we go along. Perhaps you will see some relationship between what happened after June 1941 and the charges in the indictment. We will proceed and find out.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. When did the area in which the brick works were located become Polish, and to which state did it belong before it became Polish territory?
A. This area became Polish between 1918 and 1921. Before then some of it belonged to Germany and some to Austria, and a small part of it belonged to Russia.
Q. On the basis of what treaty were these areas separated from Germany?
A. Through the Treaty of Versailles. That treaty was not ratified by the United States.
Q. Were these brick works disappropriated?
A. No.
Q. What had happened to the brick works?
A. The brick works were seized.
Q. By whom?
A. By the Main Trusteeship Agency for the East.
Q. On the basis of what decree?
A. On the basis of the decree issued by that agency of November 1939.
Q. Will you explain to the Tribunal the difference between "seizure" and "disappropriation" under Germany law?
THE PRESIDENT: That we know by heart.
DR. GAWLIK: May I put the following question, Mr. President?
Q. (By Dr. Gawlik) What, under British and American law, are the correct terms for seizure and confiscation?
A. As far as I have had the opportunity to do so in prison, I have gone into the linguistic side of these terms, because they are part of the indictment. When something is seized this is covered by the term "seizure" and disappropriation is covered by the term "confiscation".
Q. Where were the owners of the brick works?
A. Most of the owners had fled the country. They were not at their works.
Q. When had these been seized?
A. You mean the actual seizure?
Q. Yes.
A. In the last weeks of 1939 and the first weeks of 1940.
Q. What happened to the Brick Works after the seizure?
A. A general custodian was appointed who took care of the adminitration of the Brick Works and was generally in charge. Also, the general custodian had the duty of bringing the Brick Works up to the fullest level of production.
Q. Who was appointed general custodian for the Brick Works?
A. Herr Pohl.
Q. Did Pohl receive that assignment because it was onnected with the tasks of the Main Office Administration and Economy?
A. No, that order had nothing to do with the tasks of the Main Office, Administration and Economy or even with the Main Office Budget and Construction. The assignment could have been given quite easily to a private owner, or an official, or anybody else.
Q. Did Herr Pohl carry out the actual functions of the custodianship himself?
A. No, you can't put it that way. He was not in a position to do that. He issued general directives and supervised the administration.
Q. Whom did Pohl order to take care of the administration?
A. Pohl's deputy in that sphere was Dr. Salpeter. Dr. Salpeter had the task of building up the administration, and he gave me the order to look after the economic administration of the Brick Works.
Q. What was the designation given to the agency directed by Dr. Salpeter which had to administer the seized Brick Works?
A. The general Trusteeship Agency, from the point of view of internal organization, that is to say, in the relations between Pohl, Dr. Salpeter and myself, was simply given the brief designation III-A/4. As far as the outside was concerned, that is to say , when it negotiated with the economic organizations -- the government departments and so forth -- it had the title:
The Reichsfuehrer-SS and Chief of the German Police with the Reich Ministry of the Interior, the Chief of the Main Office Economy and Administration as the Trustee General for the Factories Producing Construction Material in the Eastern Territories.
Q. Which designation would have been more correct?
A. It would have been more correct to call it the General custodianship Agency for Construction Material in the Eastern Area. That designation I suggested to Salpeter to use, but he turned this down and preferred the more long-winded, and as it seems to me, incorrect designation.
Q. What would have happened had your suggestion been followed?
A. My Idea would have expressed that here we had a special task which was not connected with the other tasks of the Main Office Administration and Economy.
Q. What is the explanation for the trusteeship agency's choosing the designation III-A/4?
A. I would explain that as being an inclination on the part of Herr Pohl and Dr. Salpeter to organize all tasks and duties into a certain scheme. Every new task was given a small square on the chart and was connected by a line with some task which already existed, regardless of the fact whether they were really connected with each other or not. Any factual or natural connection between these two things did not really exist. Anyway, in this particular case it certainly did not exist.
Q. Did the Main Department II-A/4 have any joint tasks with the other main office, Office III-A?
A. No.
Q. Can you explain that in detail?
A. At the most you could say that there was an internal connection between II A/1 and II-A/4 because both main departments dealt with the production of construction material.