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.
Nevertheless, there were a number of fundamental differences. As far as III-A/1 was concerned, we had plants which belonged to the enterprises. They owned them. In the case of III--A/4 it was on a trusteeship basis. A second difference was that in the case of many of the plants of III-A/1 inmates were used which did not apply to the plants of the Eastern Construction Material Works at any time.
Q. Did III-A/4 have any joint tasks with the other offices of the Main Office Economy and Administration?
A. No.
Q. Did III-A/4 have any tasks which were different from those of the other offices and the Main Department?
A. Yes, that becomes clear from what I have testified to so far.
Q. How long did III-A/4 exist?
A. Until 31 May 1941.
Q. What happened then?
A. Effective the first of June 1941 or perhaps a few days later, Main Department III-A/4 was taken out of Office 111-A. It was assigned to Staff W as a Main Department, but that was purely a temporary solution from an organizational point of view which becomes clear from Document NO-1299, which is Exhibit 35, in volume 2 on page 67 of the German text.
Q. Were there any changes in the activities and tasks of III-A/4 after that?
A. Fundamentally speaking there were no changes, but the department was extended in order to have the few fundamental tasks which up to then had been taken care of by Dr. Salpeter as Chief of Office III-A.
Q. How long did the Main Department remain with Staff O?
A. Until the autumn of 1941.
Q. What happened then?
A. At that period of time, about September or the beginning of October, the whole economic side of the Main Department Economy and Administration was broken down into 8 categories.
Each of these 8 categories was given the designation W Offices. From the Main Department Staff O, there grew W-II.
Q. When was the WVHA established?
A. In February of 1942.
Q. What organizational changes did the establishment of the WVHA entail as far as W-II was concerned?
A. No changes at all. Its tasks remained the same and the organizational designations remained the same also.
Q. Approximately what was the number of enterprises under the direction of W-II when the WVHA was founded?
A. About 400.
Q. When did you become an Office Chief, Amtschef?
A. In the autumn of 1941.
Q. Please look at Document NO-1561, which is Exhibit 19. This is your affidavit of 16 January 1947.
THE PRESIDENT: You asked how big W-II was when it was incorporated into WVHA, and he gave the figure of 400. Does that mean there were 400 different enterprises or people or what?
A. 400 plants, Mr. President, about 400 plants. The figure may be slightly too high. Perhaps there might have been only 380.
Q And what type of works were they?
A They were brick works and other works of the stone and earth industry.
Q I have the document; it is your affidavit of 16 January, 1947, in Document Book I, Book I, page 118. In that affidavit you have said this: " I became Office Chief of W-2 when the W-offices were newly established on 28 June, 1942." What comments have you to make about that?
A The date when I was appointed office chief I didn't remember very precisely. When I was appointed office chief, this was not quite so significant to my work and position as one might be tempted to think. As far as my legal position or the way I worked were concerned, not the slightest change occured. Nevertheless, it seemed to me that the date was not quite correct and I, therefore asked the interrogator to show me the document from which the date could become clear. My documents were requested, and they were brought along, but that particular document happened to be missing. It was once again confirmed to me that a document existed with the precise date, and I had no misgivings, therefore, to leave the date as it was without checking up on it on the basis of the document whether or not the date was correct.
As a matter of fact, as I have now seen from the documents submitted by the Prosecution, the date is now much clearer and correct: This is Document No-1004, Exhibit 445, in Volume 16 on page 78, dated 15 August, 1941; and I still signed that as Main Department Chief.
Document NO-1013, Exhibit 447, on page 81 of Document Book 16, as of the date of 14 October, 1941, and this is the first document submitted here which I have signed as an Amtschef, Office Chief. From there I may conclude that the appointment occured between the 15th of August and the 15th of October, 1941. At that time, by the way, I did not think that the designation "Office Chief" or the date of the appointment would ever become so important in the course of this trial, of course.
Q When you became an office chief, were you informed about all important matters in the WVHA by circulars?
A No; every office group was a separate unit, and there were very rare points of contact.
Q As an office chief were you informed about all important matters of Office Group W by circulars.
A No, that was not done either. The various W-offices worked on different fields, and that automatically, led to the various offices working independently, to a large extent, at least as far as interoffice-relations were concerned.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Witness, I am a little confused by these dates. The WVHA was organized in February 1942, is that right?
A Yes.
Q And yet you say you were appointed Office Chief of Amt W-2 between August and October 1941?
A Yes, Mr. President. The designation was not coined when the WVHA was newly organized. It was done quite independently of that, and the whole group W was taken over as it was founded in the autumn of 1941 by the WVHA.
Q There were W offices before WVHA was organized?
A Yes, quite; the designation existed previously.
Q I understand.
WITNESS: May I continue with answering you question?
BY DR. GAWLIK: Counsel for defendants Volk and Boberlin:)
Q Yes, continue.
A I have said before that the various fields on which the W offices worked quite logically led to a separation of interests. Furthermore, our offices were separated geographically, and as early as October, 1941, I had transferred my offices to Posen.
The documents also show that seemingly common interests such as allocation of inmate labor was communicated as a rule to only those offices which were interested immediately and vitally in the allocation of inmate labor. For instance, the order that people must work for eleven hours, which is contained in Document NO-1290, in Volume 14, on page 46, was not communicated even for informative purposes, although at that time inmates were working in Golleschau. Certain connections existed between the W offices by what we called the DWB interests.
Here we had a magazine which was published at irregular intervals which dealt exclusively with accounting and taxation matters. I do not remember that any other matter was contained in this DWB publication.
Q What rights did you have as an office chief?
AAs an office chief I had no rights whatsoever. I was simply allowed to have the title. We discussed that point quite frequently in this court. I must say that it was never clear before --- and it certainly has not been cleared up here. Therefore, I can only speak as far as my own sphere was concerned. The only right -- if I can call it a right -- connected with my appointment ans an office chief was the fact that I could, without any intermediary, go and report to Pohl directly. As far as I am concerned, I am inclined to compare the designation "Office Chief" to that of a counsel; that is to say, the man who works in the economic field but who, for official reasons, has been given this honorary title in order to be able to place him at the right place at a banquet, for instance.
Q When were the Eastern German Construction Material factories established?
A Those plants were established at the beginning of 1941.
Q In other words, that was at a period of time before Main Department III-A-4 had been changed into Staff O, is that correct?
A Yes, that is quite correct.
Q What was the reason why those plants were established?
A I had proven itself impossible to work economically under these long-winded routine designations. In addition to that, when we had negotiations with Dr. Winkler, with the HTO, he had recommended to have the tasks taken care of by a company of the German Reich in order to thereby have the financing of the plants taken care of in a better manner. That was the reason why the company was founded. I was at that time not on duty when this establishment was carried out, but, of course, I insisted before that these things should be given a correct form under commercial law.
Q What was the purpose and what were the tasks of the Eastern German Construction Material factories?
A Those factories had the task, by order of the Custodian General, to operate and to extend the brick works. That is part of the contract, and I pointed out at the time that we must have a written order by the Custodian General to the company. If I may make a brief statement about the nature of that order, I would say that it was a task for the national economy in order to have certain areas supplied with building material and other items. The company did not have the aim -- or at least not the purpose -- to administer enemy property. It did so in certain cases, but it was not its task. It was not the essence of its existence. Its assignment was of a purely economic nature. This becomes evident from Document N0-1008, which is Exhibit 444, in Volume 16, on page 70 of the German version. In that letter of Pohl's to Himmler which I had drafted at a time after a conference with Pohl, it is stated expressly that those brick works with German nationals or citizens of the Reich interested up to 73 percent were made part of the seizure and put under a commissioner.
The purpose therefore was to have as many trick works as possible run properly in order to have as much construction material available as possible. One must bear in mind here that the construction material industry is a key industry and that much depends on it. Many branches of economy rely on it and thousands of people exist by them. One should also bear in mind that in those areas damage caused by war had to be made good and I should finally like to point out that the areas in some cases were agricultural ones which by improving the drainage system were to produce more. Therefore, the production of drainage pipes was an important item of my duties.
Q: What form was given to the company behind the Eastern German Construction Material Factories?
A: It was a company with limited liability, a G.m.b.H.
Q: Were the Eastern German Material Factories an SS company?
A: No.
Q: Can you explain that a little more?
A: As I see it, a company can only be regarded as an SS company if the capital belongs to the SS or if exclusively and overwhelmingly SS members worked there or if the profits were being given to the SS. None of these things applies to the Eastern German Construction Material Works. The capital was with the Reich, with the HTO on a trusteeship basis. Only a negligible number of SS men worked there and the profits were not given to the SS but remained with the organization.
Q: Did the Eastern German Construction Material Works have the task to supply the SS with construction material?
A: No, this plant simply supplied the general market and sold its products to anybody who needed them and who had permision by the departments to buy construction material.
Q: Does the same apply also to the other construction material works which you administered later on.
A: Yes, those organizations again only supplied the market in general and worked according to the same principles, as far as the people were concerned.
Q: Who were the partners of the Eastern German Construction Material Factories?
A: Although I was not present, I can only assume this must have been the DWB on the one hand and Herr Pohl as an individual on the other. Herr Pohl then gave his shares to the DWB with the result that for a certain period of time the DWB was the sole partner at 100%, but the shares later on -- I believe in 1943 -- were handed over to the German Reich.
Q: How large were the investments?
A: Do you mean the actual capital? The actual capital amounted to 20,000 Reichsmarks, which is the smallest sum allowed by law in order to establish a G.m.b.H. That money -- I would like to say right away -- was not touched upon at all when the factory was later on developed and when sales and purchases were carried out. The capital came, as I shall explain later on, from different sources and was considerably larger so that sum played no part at all.
Q : What was the difference between the tasks of the Eastern German Construction Material Works and the Main Department III-A/4?
A: There were no differences at all; both designations are simply two designations for one and the same task.
Q: Why, after the establishment of the Eastern German Construction Material Works, did III-A/4 continue to exist?
A: For no reason at all. Main Department III-A/4 is simply a designation for the same thing. That is to say an organizational designation for internal relations with Herr Pohl. As far as the outside was concerned, this did not appear on the scene, and we only talked about it as the Eastern German Construction Material Works. That also applied to the internal relations within my own Main Department.
Q: What organization had been established in order to have these many brick works administered?
A: The brick works in one district or in various districts were organized into what we called a work group. Several working groups made up a working center.
Q: How many such centers and groups existed within the Eastern German Building Material Factories?
A: The figure varied. During the war there were a number of reorganizations, in some cases because we were short of personnel and in others because certain plants had to be closed down. At the beginning of the war, that is to say, when the trusteeship agency was established we had about 50 working groups and 5 centers. Later on, for the first time in the autumn of 1940, three centers of the Warthegau were organized into one center with the result that of 5 centers only 3 remained, and these groups were also later on centralized with the result that we had about 30 in the end.
Q: Please look at Document NO-1045, which is Exhibit 23 in Document Book II on page 26 of the English Document Book. Is this document correct in the way it gives the organization of III-A/4, the various centers and so on?
A: Yes, this is how the organization was when the Main Department was established early in 1940 and that state of affairs applied until the autumn of the same year. After that the centers in Litzmannstadt, Kalisch, and Posen were united into one center, Posen, and that, in its turn, was united with the main administration and all that was managed in Kalisch and was what we called a technical office.
Q: What were the tasks of the centers and the groups?
A: The groups had the task of operating the factories, that is to say, special practical tasks which would result from the management of the plant. At the same time the groups were in charge of accounting for the various factories as the central agency. I should like to add here and now at that/all times we had separate accounts for each factory maintained that so that it enabled us at any time to change whatever was a necessary. For instance, to have one plant, which was given up by the trusteeship agency draw up its final balance sheet and transfer the capital somewhere else. Did you also ask me about the centers?
Q: Yes.
A: The centers supervised the groups. They requested the money from the Main Administration which they required to pay the workers. They also sold the products; they supervised the accounting an bookkeeping. They were the important people when we contacted Government departments and they were the link between the groups, the factories, and the main administration.
Q: Who was in charge of the individual factory?
A: That depended on how big it was. A large factory was directed by a works manager, and in a small factory we had what we called the Werkmeister or foreman.