Q At that time he was subordinate to Bartels?
A. Bartels at that time was a subordinate and Haas was a commander of the concentration camp Wewelsburg. He was directly subordinate to the concentration camp inspectorate. Taubert, as senior official of the garrison, had certain functions as his superior, and certain functions only.
Q Now, tell me one thing. Schwarz testified in his first affidavit that you were his superior. You denied that. Did you know him at all?
A It may be that I saw Haas once briefly. I do not have any recollection of him.
Q But if you were his superior you must have seen him at least a few times, and must have spoken to him?
A One must assume so.
Q I now come to Document Book 3 of the Prosecution, and am concerning myself with Document 1292, Exhibit 56, Page 51 in the German, Page 46 in the English. Do you know this document?
A Just a moment, please.
Q It is Book 3, page 56 in the English transcript, Page 51 in the German document book.
A Document 1292?
This was the first time that I saw this document. Wewelsburg is mentioned in this document, and this with two different requests. One request for the construction management of Wewelsburg, and one order for the construction management of the concentration camp Wewelsburg.
Q Did you have anything to do with that?
A No.
Q Now, you have told us that you had nothing to do with it, but it appears in the main division for special tasks--that is, in Amt W-8-there was a main division for cultural monuments. Did this have anything Court No. II, Case No. 4.to do with Amtsgruppe C?
A This main division for cultural construction of monuments had nothing to do with Amtsgruppe C. It had nothing to do with Wewelsburg either. Its chief was Regierungsbaurat, Construction Councillor, SS Obersturmfuehrer of the SS, by the name of Giesemann. He was Obersturmfuehrer on the personal staff of the Peichsfuehrer-SS.
DR. BERGOLD: Gentlement, I see you are still looking for the document. In this document we are concerned with the appendix to the document.
WITNESS: This man was on the personal staff of the Reichsleader-SS and was only assigned to this company for economics. His field of work was the planning of changes and extensions or other construction of other monuments, other than Wewelsburg. Since Himmler was very much interested in these matters, the construction manager had to belong to Himmler's personal staff. To that extent it was a similar model as the one in Wewelsburg. Occasionally, when I requested him, Giesemann also undertook constructions for the convalescent homes association.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q Thank you. Did you ever have anything to do with the main division I-5, or with Amt D-2?
A No, these offices I had nothing to do with. That also can be seen from the documents.
Q. Did you ever get from D-II or its predecessor main office I-5, the circulars about inmate works?
A I did not receive the circulars.
Q Are you on the distribution list?
A I am not on the distribution list.
Q Did you know the defendant Sommer at all, who is not present at the moment?
A I saw Sommer for the first time here in jail, in Nurnberg.
Q Did you ever have anything to do with his superior, Maurer?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A Not him either.
Q But in your affidavit you concede such a possibility. Is that the case which you have explained already before?
A I have explained that case already before. I was surprised because once I had actually negotiated with Kammler because of construction material contingencies, and at that time I saw that the official channels for concentration camp matters were quite different because a representative of the Inspectorate was always at Wewelsburg itself.
Q For how long, as far as you know, were inmates employed in Wewelsburg?
A I said already that, according to knowledge I have today, the inmates, in the spring of 1943, were exchanged, and only about fifty Jehovah witnesses remained there. The beginning of the Kommando was about 1939.
Q What can you say about Document 1290, Exhibit 60, in Volume III; it is on page 64 in the English Document Book, page 65 in the German.
A This is a memorandum of Office D-2 which was addressed to the offices which had to deal with inmates. Office W-8 is not listed on the distribution list.
DR. BERGOLD: May it please the Tribunal, I may point out expressly that Amt W-8 is not listed on the distribution list, and, furthermore, I want to point out expressly that in the abbreviations, "AU-1 Auschwitz, Buchenwald...etc," the word "NI" is not among them. The concentration camp Wewelsburg did not exist at all at that time. "NI" meant Niederhagen.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q Witness, now I would like to know from you on principle, what did you hear about the employment of inmates. Did you not think about it at all?
A Yes. In 1939, when the first inmates came to Wewelsburg, I Court No. II, Case No. 4.made inquiries with the construction manager, what kind of prisoners they were.
At that time the construction management told me that they were in security detention, and they were habitual criminals in detention for security. Political prisoners would not be turned over to such camps because the danger existed of their escaping, and the possibility of their sending out news, smuggling out news was too great.
Q. Did you worry about the employment of prisoners, regarding the admissibility of such employment or the humaneness of it?
A. I did not worry about it, especially, but it seemed to me to be quite to natural occurrence; keeping people in protective custody happened in Germany already before 1933 and it was discussed in the Reichstag Commission and by a revision of the Reich Penal Coade, and this was in 1928. At that time this was already discussed. Keeping people in protective custody was only done in the case of habitual criminals, wh, after they had served their term would probably again commit a crime. This was the most serious punishment that German judges ever passed, because there was no time limit to it and from the time when I was referendar, I know that the courts did not like to issue such a sentence.
Q. Well, you are speaking about habitual criminals, heavey criminals, but you also heard that opponents of the political government were also incarcerated in concentration camps.
A. I would first like to add, if people were kept in protective custody, the sentence, was reviewed every three years by the legal courts who had passed that sentence. Moreover, I, as every other lawyer in Germany, knew that in Germany there was so called protective custody and that in certain cases people were arrested by means of protective custody.
Q. What did you imagine by this proceedings? Did you imagine that some Gertapo man or other writes a warrant and a person is arrested?
A. I considered it to be a regular police procedure and a form of administration of justice in a cabinet form of government.
Q. Did you ever hear whether such a warrant for protective custody was issued on the basis of interrogations and hearing to witnesses?
A. Yes, as far as I heard about it at that time, witnesses were examined in such cases. The defendants were interrogated extensively and in that case of my sister by looking at the penal files of my sister. I found out that a very extensive evidence had been submitted.
Q. It is correct that the method of protective custody was discussed in German legal journals extensively by recognized legal theorists?
A. Perhaps I may briefly go into the question protective custody. For the first time during the first World War in 1916 this method was used in Germany. This was the internment of persons who had been suspected of having done something criminals to the state. When the Weimar Constitution was drafted, the author of the Constitution, Preuss, incorporated certain basic rights in the Constitution. Among these basic freedoms belonged the right of any citizen, if he was arrested, to be brought before a legal judge within 24 hours. As we have to see today, unfortunately, Preuss, however, in Section II of Article 48, created the possibility to render this basic privilege ineffective. Apparently he had as an example the provision of 1916, Reich President and on the basis of such emergency decree by the Reich President, in February 1933 protective custody introduced.
Q. Thank you, that is sufficient.
A. The leading German Constitutional theorists, especially Professor Karl Schmidt, who was regarded as the highest leading German theorist, before 1933 already wrote a scientific work about the right of protective custody and in that work he recognized the legality of this method. I myself at that time did not consider myself to be more intelligent that the leading professors and the Reich Government together.
Q. Witness, did you know that prisoners of war were also put into concentration camps.
A. I did not know that.
Q. Did you know that foreigners were put into concentration camps?
A. I did not know that either.
Q. But I have to put your own report to you, Document 545 in Book 17.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit number?
DR. BERGOLD: 555 Excuse me, 54 --455 Exhibit 455.
A. (By Dr. Bergold) Witness, you just rectified that you knew nothing about the fact that foreigners were sent to concentration camps. In this report that you drafted yourself you referred to the affair of a Czech, Franski; was he not a foreigners?
A Not within the meaning of the law. Franski had lived in Germany and therefore had received German citizenship.
INTERPRETER: I am sorry, Your Honor. There is something wrong with Channel No.1 There is a noise on Channel No., and it is dead.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's quit anyway.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will br recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until August 14, 1947-at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript pf the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Oswald Pohl, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on August 14, 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Toms presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal No.2.
Military Tribunal No. 2 is now i session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
HORST KLEIN -- Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION -- Continued BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, yesterday I asked you about the Czech Domansky, and over that question we had difficulties with the technical apparatus, and, therefore, I am going to repeat my question, but I don't know whether it is entered into the record. In answer to my last question, when the apparatus was damaged, you said that you knew nothing about the fact that foreigners had been sent to the concentration camps. Again I put your own report to you in Book XVII of the prosecution, Document No. 547, Exhibit 155. In that report you mentioned the Czech Domansky receiving material, and yet today you state that you did not know anything about foreigners getting in concentration camps.
A. No, Domansky, according to his descent was Czech, but he had opt for the German Nation and therefore he had become a German citizen under the law concerning the incorporation of the protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia in the German Reich.
Q. Thank you, Witness, yesterday you said that the protective custody proceedings you considered to be some kind of cabinet justice and you told us how you formed that opinion on the basis of your legal training. Concerning this protective custody, did you consider it necessary when Jews were arrested?
A. I never heard that Jews were arrested differently. I assume that whenever an arrest did take place, those arrests were made for the same reasons for which Germans had been arrested, because the persons concerned have violated certain lawa, or because they were suspected of having an attitude which was hostile to the German Reich.
That is to say, that some reasons that applied to German citizen.
Q. Witness those commitments to concentration camps took place without court proceedings. Yet you do not deviate from your opinion that this was a police proceedings with the exclusion of the public?
A. No, the competence for these proceedings lay in the hands of the police for the reason that it was considered most feasible as the regular courts did not have the necessary experience concerning that point of view of the prisoner concerning the protective custody. in the law of 1916 the same point of view were applied.
Q. did you not consider those proceedings illegal for the reason that the prisoners did not get paid for their work, for, after all, they were made to work?
A. that the prisoners did not pt paid, that I didn't know. I assumed that the prisoners would get a little pay about 30 pfennigs a day if they were unskilled laborers. That arrangement was in accordance with what I know from my mining as a referendar with the German Prison Administration. As referendar I worked in here ford 18 days and got to know the prison administration. The German prisoners were paid something like 30 pfennigs per day. That pay as only handed out to them when they were discharged.
Q. But the people had not been sentenced by a court and yet you regarded them as penal prisoners, as convicts, and at the prisons at which they were held there were people who had been sentenced by the regular courts.
A. What I heard at Wewelsburg about the people in protective custody or inmates in concentration camps, they were person who had been sentenced by regular courts. Later on in the course of the war a labor conscription was introduced that was in accordance with the rules by by which the entire German people were affected and that had been developed in the course to total war.
Q. If you can consider the concentration camps, the protective custody proceedings as a kind of cabinet, justice, now, at your own trial and at the many other trails which are being held in allied countries, during those trials, you heard a number of things. Did those make you change your views?
A. No, my opinion does not date from the present. I am of the view that the basic law, the basic ruling, that within 24 hours you must be brought before an ordinary court is absolutely necessary as a basic for all personal liberty. Through the fate of my family and my own fate that has become an absolute certainty for me. Anyone who has not that right cannot consider himself a free person. I consider it unwise to make a policy other than that and I also consider it immoral, and the point of view which I have taken is that this protective custody was a regular police proceedings and was a form of cabinet justice, but I think it was unwise and immoral. Even such laws that have been legally promulgated can be immoral.
Q. Witness, were you of the opinion that protective custody had something to do with the SS as such?
No, for the protective custody that Reich Ministry of the Interior was competent. Himmler was the Undersecretary, Staatssekretaer of the Reich Ministry of the Interior. That was a personal office that Himmler held as Undersecretary. He was the Chief of the German Police and in that capacity, the Gestapo was subordinated to hom. The Gestapo, however, I did not consider a formation of the SS. In that respect, I myself in two cases heard from the Gestapo that the Gestapo did not consider as a formation of the SS. In one case I heard that when Obergruuppenfuehrer Frank, when he had intervened for my sister, told me that my sister's files had been looked into and that Fuller had told him the General SS had nothing to do with the Gestapo. Consequently, the fact that I looked into the files had been high treason.
The second case occurred in August, 1944, when again I had made an attend with the Gestapo and the Deputy of Mueller again put it to me that my actions had constituted high treason and that the General SS had nothing to do with the Gestapo. The Gestapo was exclusively a Reich agency.
DR. BERGOLD: I have to correct something hers. My assistant has just told me that the translation may perhaps have been a misunderstanding. It was not the case of somebody having looked in the defendant's files, but we were talking about the defendant having looked in his sister's file.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: That's what I got.
DR. BERGOLD: Thank you.
Q. (By Dr. Bergold) Witness, However, through Himmler was not a contact established between the SS, and the concentration camps?
A. As I said before, Himmler was Undersecretary under Frick in the Ministry of the Interior there was a prison office. He combined that office with that of Glieder ungsfuehrer, Formation Leader of the SS. We had a similar case with Goering. Goering was one of the highest SA leaders, Beside he was Reich Air Minister. Nobody for that reason considered the Reich Air Ministry a subformation of the SA. Now I realize that by combining the two offices of Chief of the German Police and of Formation Leader of the SS and by Himmler combining these two offices, the tragedy of the SS began. Himmler at that time in his own person united two extremes. On the one hand the perhaps most decent office which by the Third Reich had to give away the position of the formation leader, Gliederungsfuehrer of the SS; On the other hand toe office which was perhasp the mist indecent one which a Fascist State had to give away, the office of the Chief of the State Police, the Gestapo. In that course of developments the position of the formations bee me more and more unimportant. That was true for the General SS in a similar way in which it was true for the SA. Himmler, therefore tried to get hold of new and genuien positions of power.
To begin with he personally took over the office of the Chief of the German Police. Later on he created the Waffen SS which he could fit in the budget of the Reich. Finally be became Reich Minister of the Interior, The Chief of the Army Training Reserve. All those were positions of personal power held by Himmler. Himmler at that time received the head of Janus. On the one hand, as the formation leader, there were the plans which General Wolff has described here for the SS. On the other hand the Chief of the State Police. Under that grimace, under complete secrecy, he gave vent to his tyranny.
Court No. II, Case No. IV.
Q. Where else?
A. Inside Germany we say the features of the formation leader, which showed itself openly, whereas the grimace was completely secret and hidden. It is clear to me today that abroad only the grimace could be seen for everybody who escaped abroad from the claws of the Gestapo must have become a propagandist against the methods of Himmler and the Gestapo.
Q. Well, that is all very well, but was not such a man bound to exert bad influence on the SS?
A. At the time I was not able to make observations of that nature. Himmler always preached an idealistic attitude.
Q. Did you at any time obtain a personal impression of Himmler? Did you ever meet him?
A. Yes, that was in March, 1940. May I correct something there. During the examination of General Wolff a translating error crept into the English transcript. It says there when Dr. Ficht asked a question that that conversation took place in 1943. That is incorrect.
DR. BERGOLD: That is correct. In the German transcript the correct date is given, 1940, but in the English transcript, evidently it is either a translating error or a typing error, the year has been given as 1943.
A. (Continued) At that time I reported to Himmler and told him that the construction at Wewelsburg was infringing on the laws, which Himmler as Police Chief had to supervise. First Himmler pulled a face as if he had bitten into a sour lemon and then Wolff stepped into the conversation and Himmler actually did desist from his favorite idea, and for some time, that is to say, for more than one year, stooped the work of the brewery and I was impressed by his overcoming his own desires. For the rest, Himmler had fantastic idealistic ideas. Dr. Bergold, in describing the happenings in the crypt with the weapons, has already mentioned this.
But I was not able to assume that a person who had such idealistic and fantastic ideas would be capable of such cruelty, as became evident later on. I considered his ideas to be more or less fantasies, similar to those in America, where there are supposed to be societies where the members wear medieval costumes.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Which organization is that? I never heard of it.
DR. BERGOLD: Here in Germany, perhaps, it is only a rumor, but here in Germany it is said quite frequently that in the States there are societies where members for certain festival occasions dress in costumes of knights and similar things. However, Gentlemen, you must know for yourself between these two nations, every so often rumors go about.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Witness, you have described to us in general your work at Wewelsburg. You have told us approximately one-half went to Wewelsburg. By the way, I would like to ask you - where did you normally live, and where was your office when you were not at Wewelsburg?
A My office was in Berlin until the spring of 1943.
Q Were you always in Berlin?
A Then I went to Kranichsfeld. I lived in Kranichsfeld. I was away a great deal and, generally speaking, rather very frequently; I only spent ten days every month in Berlin at the central office.
Q From when on did your work in Wewelsburg decrease?
A My work in Wewelsburg was almost entirely finished in the summer of 1942 when there was no longer any need for the sale of sites.
Q What did you do after that; what was your work after that?
A From then onward I started to get the rest homes going. I got the commission to establish rest homes for women and children, and that was a work which satisfied me to a far greater extent than the task at Wewelsburg had done.
Q How many homes were at, your disposal?
A When I started that work there were three homes. The SS Berghaus under Theato - and at the head of it Obergruppenfuehrer Frank with ten beds; one home at Salzbah-Walden, with 20 beds; and further, a small home at Karlsbad. The latter two were under the Facial and Settlement Main Office. The home at Karsbad always remained under the Facial and Settlement Office.
Q Well, could you fulfill your tasks with these few homes?
A No, I went into the demand for homes, and the demand was very big as women and children were suffering terribly from air raids in our big cities. The food situation, too, in the big cities was bad.
Q Were you able to carry out that task via the W VIII Office?
A No, no. I could not carry out that task via the Office W VIII, But I had to create a new legal organization, the combine of homes.
Q Can you tell me why the foundation of those homes was really Court No. II, Case No. 4.necessary?
AAs to financing, for the accommodation, and for the food, there were only those possibilities that existed for any other private undertaking. The Reich budget of the Waffen-SS could not include funds for homes for women and children. In the budget of the general SS, that is to say, the Nazi Party, the NSDAP, there were no funds either for homes. Hotel space, hotel accommodation was no longer available on account of confiscation. What I mean to say is, forced agreements, forced rental agreements; and hotel accommodations for that reason were very short. Very short. Later, forced tenancy was no longer possible. Therefore, I was left only with those facilities that are available to any private undertaking.
Q Why did you choose the legal form of a club and not an incorporation?
A I chose that form so that no incorporation into the DWB should occur. The DWB was not suitable for my task, my charitable task. Furthermore, a purely commercial activity of the SS was not to my liking. In the case of a club any such incorporation was not possible as there were no shares which could have been transferred to a holding company. As a further guarantee I entered the provision into the statute that the property of the club in the case of liquidation should be used for charitable purposes. Later, it was in the late summer of 1944, at the instructions of Pohl and the W staff, a firm Rest Homes for Natural Cure and Way of Living, G.m.b.H. - was established which was to enter into an organic relationship with the DWB; but that firm never started work. I was appointed manager of that firm, but I did not undertake any work in the firm for the very reason that the foundation capital had never been paid in and I would have made myself liable by my own person. In the club for homes, Heimeverein, I had a stronger position than with the monuments society because I was the manager.
Q Well, witness, you have just described to us that, in any event, in the budget there were no funds for the homes. How did you get Court No. II, Case No. 4.funds?
Did you get them by loans from the other W firms; or how, actually, did you get your money?
A I earned those funds. The homes club consisted of two departments; one, the rest homes; and two, the hospital department. The rest homes needed extra money paid into it; whereas the hospital department earned money. The SS hospital department was under the SS Leadership Main Office. Office Group D, Medical Department of the WaffenSS -- it was always briefly called Medical Office -- Sanitaetsamt. That Medical Office had a contract, an agreement, with the German Holiday Company, on the management of the hospital department, that is to say, kitchen and hotel staff. Accounts were settled according to a certain rate for the hotel staff, independent of the number of people, the number of patients, and according to a certain rate for the food which was dependent on the number of patients.
Q There is no need to go into such detail.
A That contract, that agreement, was criticized by the Auditing Court because the DWB was asking for more money. The Medical Office was looking for a new person and I jumped into the breach and, by my management of the hospital departments, I made the usual profits which were admissible under the Reichsleistungsgesetz.
Q Well, what was the extent or scope of the hospital departments? I just like to get a picture of your work.
A On the 1st of October 1944, fifteen hospital departments with about 3500 beds were under management. Besides, there was the maternity home at Marienbad, with five houses.
Q And what was the scope of the homes; how many homes were you looking after?
AAt the same time there were 35 rest homes With approximately 1500 beds.
Q But I don't think it has become quite clear as to how you procured the funds for the homes. Exclusively from the private profits from the hospital?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
AAs far as I needed additional funds for the rest homes, I could take those from my profits, through the management of the hospital departments.
Q Well, that is all very well-
THE PRESIDENT: How many hospitals did you say?
WITNESS: 15.
DR. BERGOLD: 15 hospitals, and 35 rest homes.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q Well, witness, that is all very well, but, did you get money from managing the homes? You had to make a start some where.
A Well, first of all I took up a credit with interest with the Dresdner Bank -- I think it was 200,000 PM -- and after 9 months I was able to pay it back.
Q You said just now that you also set up maternity homes. Did those maternity homes have any thing to do with the Lebensborn?
A No; on the contrary, in the SS there was an antipathy for the Lebensborn, that is to say, the women, the waives of the SS men did not want to be in the same homes as the mothers of illegitimate children. The situation in the big cities at that time was such that, as far as possible, the women had to be sent to homes which were not in danger of air raids; therefore, together with the Medical Office I set up other maternity homes; or, rather, unfortunately only the Marienbad was actually established - whereas I had many other plans which I wished to carry out.
Q Were you looking after all the SS rest homes of the SS?
A No. The RSHA, the SS Main Office, the SS Death Head formations had their own homes which were under completely independent management.
Q What were the plans you had with your homes; were they always to be limited to the SS, or were other persons to be allowed in it as well?
A No. The intention was to open the homes for persons from all Court No. II, Case No. 4.circles, also from outside the SS, and, in fact, frequently people were admitted who had nothing to do with the SS.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Who became the owners of the fortune of the club?
A The owners were the members under formal law, but they could not use the property of the club because by doing that they would have had to liquidate the club; and in the case of liquidation the property of the club would have had to be available for charitable purposes. Therefore, it was a property so tied to the use for purposes of idealism similar to a donation.
Q Witness, when you said that the property of a club could not be used for other purposes, do you mean to say it could be used for the purposes of the club?
A Naturally; that was laid down in the statute.
Q According to the account which you have given us so far it seems to me that your office could not be compared with the other offices of the WVHA?
A My office had no way of contact with the other offices. The clubs which I directed were not incorporated in the DWB because their aims were exclusively cultural, or charitable. That was also shown when the office was transferred to Thuringia. I did not feel it was to my disadvantage that I was not at Berlin. If I had been forced to be in continuous contact with the other offices, that would have great disadvantages on account of the distance.
Q What is the conclusion you draw from your views?
A The designation "Amtschef" - chief of office - was merely a designation, a title, for me. Just like the other employees I was merely an employee of the Monument Society, or of the Homes Club. My employees, too, were not employees of the WVHA, but they were the employees of the firms. My work was not affected by changes in the organization. It always continued along the same lines. The W VIII had no legal status. It was purely a fiction.
Q Well, you say that you had been merely an employee of the Homes Club, but I have to put it to you that in October 1943 you received a contract from the DWB; does that not prove that you belonged to the DWB?