Aug-14-A-MJ-23-1-Arminger (Garand)
Q. You stated definitely that the "Stuermer" published was prohibited at one time? You state that definitely?
A. I can't say that with certainty. I am not precisely informed about these matters. However, I believe I did hear it.
Q. Upon the seizure of power by the Nazis you were aware, were you not, that the program against the Jews was intensified?
A. I couldn't say that. Actually, it wasn't clear to me at all.
Q. You have described events which took place in November of 1938. Those particular events coincided with the Nazi seizure of power, did they not?
A. I looked at these incidents as I might say a riot caused by the mob. The mob always likes to do some pilfering and pillaging.
Q. There was no instigation whatsoever by the Nazi Party or by the SS?
A. I stated that at the time I heard secretly that Goebbels was alleged to have instigated the whole matter. However, I did not know --- it did not come to my knowledge that the SS had officially participated in this program.
Q. But it was general knowledge, was it not, that the SS had instigated these things and was in the back of it, supported it?
A. Oh, no.
Q. We have heard testimony in this court concerning the rounding up of the Jews and their being lead through the streets and it was stated then that anyone who lived, resided, in Berlin, could have seen these things. Did you witness any of these incidents yourself?
A. Never. I was extraordinarily surprised about this testimony.
Q. Following the demonstration against the Jews in 1938, do you remember any other incidents of the same nature that took place?
A. After 1938?
Q. Yes.
A. I can't think of any at the moment.
Q. How about instances before 1938?
A. In my opinion, there were no excesses either before 1938 against the Jews.
Q. The only excess you know of took place in 1938?
A. I have found out now that horrible things happened during the war also. However, during the course of the war, I didn't find out anything at all about these things.
Q. Had you ever heard of the pamphlet entitled, "The SS as an Anti-Bolshevist Fighting Organization"?
A. I can't recall having seen it.
Q. In this particular publication, the purpose of the SS was stated to be the elimination of the possibility that Germany would over again be the meeting place of Jewish Bolshevist sub-humans and that the SS without pity was to exterminate the Jews. I am asking you again, had you ever read it or have you ever heard about it? Did you know that such a publication existed?
A. Could you please repeat the question once more?
Q. Did you ever have any knowledge of the pamphlet entitled "The SS as an Anti-Bolshevist Fighting Organization"?
A. I cannot recall having seen it.
Q. Can you give me the names of some SS publications which contained the policies to be carried out by that organization?
A. There was the newspaper, the so-called "Schwarze Korps" which, however, was not always the official mouth pieve of Himmler but, as far as I know, very often contained the personal views of the publishers.
Then I believe we had some kind of training journals.
Q. You joined the SS in April, 1933, did you not?
A. Either on the 1st of April, or the 1st of May. I can't recall the precise date.
Q. I believe the record shows that you joined the SS in April, 1933, Now what was your service number, do you know?
A. In April, it is a possibility. My membership number was, as the interrogator told me here was 114,400---something. I can't recall it exactly, and I believe that this is correct.
Q. It is 114,488, the records show. You joined the NSDAP in May of the same year, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. And your Party number there was 2,167516. Does that sound right to you?
A. Two million I can still remember. The rest of it I don't know any more.
Q. I would like to ask you, witness, if you ever heard of any of Himmler's public speeches?
A. Himmler spoke only very rarely. I myself did not listen to such a speech personally.
Q. Were you familiar with "The organization of the Nazi Party?"
A. I don't know the book.
Q. That particular publication sets out the objects of the SS. Among one of the objects is the waging of war-
A. Excuse me. I can't hear the translation.
Q. I am referring to the publication entitled "The organization of the Nazi Party," and I have stated that one of the ob jects as set out in this publication was the waging of war against what was considered the State's most dangerous enemies.
Among these enemies were the Jews and political clergymen. Did you have any knowledge of that aim of the SS?
A. I have already stated that up to date I have never seen this organization Book of the Party.
Q. I would like to ask you one more question concerning official publications of the SS. I would like to know whether you have heard of the publication entitled "The SS Handbook"?
A. Yes, there was such a handbook, as far as I can recall. I have already previously mentioned that some literature was circulated.
Q. This particular publication, "The SS Handbook" was one which was given general currency amongst the members of the SS, was it not?
A. One couldn't say that. Occasionally we did get one of these book into our hands; however, that circulation never took place systematically.
Q. There is nothing on this particular book which states that circulation of it was restricted in any way. So I believe I can assume that it was for general circulation among the SS.
A. That is quite possible.
Q. I would like to hand this book to you and tell me whether you are familiar with this publication, and I would like to offer it -- rather, excuse me, I would like to present it at this time and number it for reference, if the court please, for introduction at a later date, and the reference number I shall give to it is 631. Had you ever seen such a publication before as that?
A. I did see these training manuals once in a while. Whether it was this one or another one which got into my hands once, I can't tell you.
Q. Would you please open it? First of all, this book sets out the ideas of the SS. I would like you to open it to the page which is marked with a paper and I request that you read. There is a small bit of paper in there.
A. Do you happen to know the number of the page?
DR. FROESCHMANN (Attorney for the Defendant Mummenthey) May it please the Tribunal, before I leave the court room, I would like to thank the President of this court for the announcement which the Tribunal has made. I shall see to it that my colleagues shall look into the question so that they will be prepared to discuss it.
Q. (By Mr. Higgins) Would you please read for the Tribunal the paragraph which is marked in red pencil?
A. In the meantime I must have lost it again. It is in black pencil. Furthermore, there was only a small hole in the page.
Q. Would you please read the part that is marked?
A This is an excerpt of a letter of an SS Untersturmfuehrer who died during the campaign in the East, with the heading: "The heart with a steel ring." Without knowing the connection at the moment I shall read:
"Twenty-four hours later, and again night has come, after a day which has been pregnant with many incidents. I had to conclude my work today with an execution. I received the order to shoot two Red Army men together with three other soldiers, so that they will not be able to be of any danger to us. Like animals completely deteriorated they are handed over to me. I gave each of them a spade, and then they began with digging their own graves. I am quieted down. -
JUDGE MUSMANNO: I would like to know what this book is all about. Here he is reading an excerpt from a book which means nothing to me. What is the book? What is it purported to be? What is the use of it? What is it supposed to be connected with?
MR. HIGGINS: This book is entitled "Handbook of the SS" and the particular excerpt that the witness Klein is reading now is a quotation from a letter of an SS Untersturmfuehrer. I believe it is to his wife.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: What has this defendant got to do with that particular letter? Does he know the man who wrote the letter?
MR. HIGGINS: No, he doesn't, Your Honor. But the point is that that particular handbook is a publication which was in general circulation throughout the SS, and the defendant Klein has consistently, throughout his testimony, denied the fact that he had any idea, of the ideas - rather, the purposes of the SS and its activities as an inhumane organization, and this letter -
WITNESS: May I state something in this connection? Apparently here we have a description of the execution of a court martial verdict, and that in the East. It is well know that the Waffen-SS in the East, and at other places also, was always under the orders of the Army.
That the war is a terrible catastrophe, we don't need to emphasize here. That in the course of a war court martial verdicts are given is nothing unusual either. This is something very sad. But it seems to be of necessity --
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Witness, are you familiar with that book?
WITNESS: I am reading it now for the first time.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Did you ever see that particular book before?
WITNESS: No.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Are you familiar with the publication itself? I presume this is one of a series of books. Are you familiar with the publication?
WITNESS: I did see several books from this particular series of publication.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: You have?
WITNESS: Occasionally I would look at one or the other.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Did you ever read that particular book?
WITNESS: No.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Were you as a member of the SS charged with the knowledge of the contents of that publication? Were you required to read it?
WITNESS: No.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Are you familiar with this passage that is mentioned in the book?
WITNESS: No.
MR. HIGGINS: Do you wish the defendant to continue to read it, Your Honor. If not, - it does how - May we permit the defendant to continue reading? It is just a few more sentences, I believe.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, let him finish it.
WITNESS (Continuing): "I lose my nervousness by smoking a cigarette. There is no sound. The Russians are emotionless, like animals. It is better that they have become like animals during the past few years.
They are not begging for their lives. They do not laugh and do not cry. They just dig their graves. Three guns are pointed at them. Then they are ready. They are to stand in their graves, but one of them turns around and tries to escape. He succeeds in getting away for 20 yards, then he falls. The other one stands without emotion. Then he goes into his grave, and he also falls. Two minutes later good mother earth has covered everything. We light up a new cigarette. I ask myself --"
MR. HIGGINS: That is sufficient, witness.
WITNESS (Continuing): "--- have we gone back to being soldiers of the medieval ages. Have we lost all fears, of death."
BY MR. HIGGINS:
Q Defendant, I would like to leave the subject of publications of the SS at this time and ask you whether or not you were familiar with the Roehm affair.
A I have in detail stated my knowledge of the Roehm affair. Do you want me to repeat what I have already said?
Q I would like to ask several specific questions on this matter. Was it not in connection with this putsch that you suffered a fractured skull? Wasn't there a direct connection between the putsch and this fracture?
A No.
Q When was the Roehm putsch carried out?
A The Roehm putsch took place on the 20th, or the 30th of June -I believe it was June 1934.
Q And when did you suffer the fractured skull?
A I believe this was three or four days later, that I had the motor accident.
Q And the skull fracture was not in connection with the Roehm putsch?
AAt the time I was still very tired as a result of the Roehm putsch, and I did thus not pay enough attention when I had the accident, which I would have paid normally.
It is quite possible that it wasn't as much as three or four days later, but it may have happened one or two days later. Insofar the putsch actually was the reason for my accident because my general attention was distracted at the time. In the night from Saturday to Sunday, as far as I can recall, we had to be on the alert, and I believe on Monday night I returned home. We were on the alert for two days before.
Q You were simply alerted, and you did not take any active participation in it?
A I have stated that I was called to Bielefeld for the roll call, and there we were kept on the alert. We stayed at a restaurant. I believe after two days we were able to return home.
Q Did the particular putsch lower your estimation of the SS; after all, this was a violent blood bath, was it not? -- the extermination of the considerable portion of the SA?
A What was it?
Q I say, did this -
A The SA consisted of 8 million members and the larger part had been exterminated? Maybe the translation is wrong. Can you please repeat the question?
Q Did your opinion of the idealistic pursuits of the SS decline after you had learned of the extermination of the high members, the higher officials of the SA? It was quite a purge, was it not?
AAs far as I can recall at the time, not very many executions were announces. At the time I did not have any doubts that the executions which took place actually were an emergency act. This opinion of mine was supported by the fact that also the old Reich President von Hindenburg, as far as I can recall, did not object to these executions and to the entire occasion. Apparently this was an emergency step which had to be taken according to the way I looked at it at the time.
Q When did you first learn of the true nature of this occasion?
A I heard - up to date I have not as yet, after the collapse received a very detailed description of the entire matter. I am actually not informed even today about the things which are alleged to have happened there. I only heard by rumors - for example, here, from the examination of the witness Winkler, that Hitler had also executed people who personally were not connected with this I putsch at all.
Q Well, I would like to turn to another subject. I would like to turn to another subject. I would like to ask you whether or not you were at one time associated with the Nordland Publishing Society.
A Yes. The matter was as follows: I have already stated that in February 1939 I was put at the disposal of several firms under Galke as a legal consultant. And one of these firms was the Nordland Publishing House.
Q Did your position in that organization continue - over what period of time were you representing that organization?
A I never actually represented this publishing house, in practice. My connection with this publishing house terminated completely when the main department for special tasks was established in 1940.
Q Were you ever associated with the Sudeten Spring enterprise?
A May I add that as far as I can recall, Galke at the time intended that in the firm Nordland and others I was to get used to the work there. This was not possible for the time being because I lacked the expert knowledge as a business men, and because I lacked the practical economic requirements. For example, publishing matters are extremely difficult, and I believe that Galke had me even registered in the Nordland Publishing House as a procurist. In the case of the Sudeten, the situation was similar.
Q How about the Anton Leubel enterprise? Were you ever connected with that?
A Yes, the same thing applied to Leubel.
Q The same situation applied to all three enterprises?
A Yes. In practice, however, these firms did practically not have to deal with any legal questions. Galke already left after approximately three months.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess now until tomorrow morning at ninethirty.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 0930 hours 15 August 1947.)
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 15 August 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Robert M. Toms, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Take your seats, please.
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 Tribunal has asked defense counsel to be present this morning in order to arrange the procedure on the final arguments. It has been suggested that in view of the number of defendants, that the defense counsel present their arguments first, one by one, and that the prosecution then follow with its closing argument. Is there any objection to that? It hasn't been decided. That is the proposal.
DR. SEIDL (for defendant Oswald Pohl): May it please the Tribunal, with regard to the sequence which is to be followed by the prosecution and the defense, we have up to now not as yet reached a uniform agreement as regards the procedure to be followed so far. In the trial before the IMT, first the defense had the word. On the other hand, in the trial before Military Tribunal I, the medical trial, things were handled in such a way that first the prosecution had their word, and then the defense. I personally would like to express the desire that in this trial the latter procedure should be followed. This should be done for the reason that I am convinced that this procedure will be more appropriate, as far as the course of the trial is concerned, since the prosecution was also first to present its evidence; and I take it upon myself to say that in most trial proceeding regulations this latter procedure is customary. This is also done in accordance with the German criminal law.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other defense counsel wish to express his opinion?
DR. RAUSCHENBACH (for defendants August Frank and Hans Loerner): Your Honor, I agree with the opinion which has just been expressed by my colleague, Dr. Seidl. I am also of the opinion that it would be appropriate that first the prosecution would sum up its arguments, just in the same way as submitted evidence first, and that the defense should then have the word afterwards. This would be more appropriate, particularly for the reason that the defense counsel will thus be given a fair chance to go into detail in their arguments with regard to what the prosecution has considered to be the result of its presentation of evidence so far, so that the defense in its own arguments will be able to express its opinion regarding these points. I realize that the defense speeches are to be submitted before that. However, the possibility still exists that the individual defense counsel may want to make statements about various points concluded in the final argument of the prosecution. And in this way if he wants to express himself on these points he can submit an addition to his final argument.
DR. SEIDL (for the defendant Oswald Pohl): Your Honor, I would like to add the following to the statement by my colleague, Dr. Rauschenbach. At the beginning of the trial, the defense has raised objections because of the fact that the indictment was not sufficiently substantially detailed. We stated in particular that the indictment did not permit us to realize just what accusations were raised against the individual defendants. In the meantime, the Tribunal has made a ruling about the conspiracy question, as far as this can be considered an independent point in the indictment - i.e. Count I of the indictment. The Tribunal has ruled that we do not have any independent conspiracy count. During the trial it did not become clear just what accusations actually are raised, and what counts are to be maintained against these defendants. I am, therefore, of the opinion that at least in the final arguments the prosecution should finally state just what accusations it is raising at all, what accusations have in its opinion been proved, and that this will only be appropriate if it is done before the defense has commented on the results of the presentation of evidence.
In my opinion, it shall thus be prevented that the defense is first called upon to explain in detail just what, in its opinion, has been alleged, and what has been proven.
DR. GAWLIK (for defendant Volk and Bobermin): Your Honor, in connection with the words of my colleague, Seidl, I want to say that we are not even able to make any detailed defense speeches ahead of the prosecution, because I can not defend myself without the prosecution's argument, and I must say that we do not as yet know today to what extent, and which actual accusations have been raised against the individual defendants. That is as far as Dr. Volk and Bobermin are concerned, whom I defend. In the course of the presentation of evidence we have seen repeatedly that the Tribunal has stated that a certain point need not be discussed, but in spite of this the prosecution then has submitted documents and it has maintained certain accusations. I would like to emphasize the following opinion in this respect. Before Military Tribunal V, in the generals' trial, for example, the prosecution in the case of each individual document has stated against which individual defendant this document is directed, in order to prove what count in the indictment it reviewed. From this it became evident what line of defense we should use in that respect. However, in this case the prosecution has failed to do that. For this reason I would consider it fair if now the prosecution should, first state in its final arguments just what accusations it has raised against the individual defendants, and what count they consider to have proven. Then we, as the defense, can reply to these charges.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH (for defendant August Frank and Hans Loerner): Your Honor, in immediate connection with what my colleague, Dr. Gawlik, has just stated I would like to point out a request which I have already made on the 1st of August, in writing.
I turned it in for translation; and in this letter I requested that the prosecution should be asked that with regard to every document book which they have presented here, an index of kind should be made -- it should have a table of contents an has been done in Case VII, in the case against the Southeastern generals, for the prosecution. I believe that this was done there in view of the ruling of all the Courts, according to which the conspiracy count was dropped. I am of the opinion that also in this trial now that the conspiracy charge has been dropped, the prosecution can not say any more that all documents are directed against all of the defendants. Now, as defense counsel for the defendants Frank and Loerner, I would have to know with what documents, and with what allegations against the individual defendants I have to figure which have been brought forth, because now we have the fact of the participation, or the deed itself, which have to be proven. The reference to participation in a general plan which was to be proven through a large number of documents is at this time not sufficient any more.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. McHaney - Mr. Robbins?
MR. McHANEY: Firstly, as to the remarks made by the last two attorneys which I think are quite off the point of discussion this morning. The Prosecution has no intention whatever, unless we are directly ordered by the Tribunal, to go through all the documents and earmark each one of those, and to say this has such an applicability to the defendants -
THE PRESIDENT: I tell you frankly, Mr. McHaney, if you don't do it, the Tribunal will have to, and is doing it.
MR. McHANEY: If your Honor please, that is quite true. We will select that evidence which we think bears directly against each defendant, but it is an impossible task to take the position that certain evidence is not to be considered with respect to certain of the defendants, which is the thing which is being sought for by the defense counsel. For example, there is a great mass of proof in the record which deals with conditions in concentration camps in general - a systematic commission of atrocities -
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that is corpus delicti proof.
MR. McHANEY: Very true. Now, we can't segregate that evidence and say it does not apply to this man and it does apply to that man. The theory of the prosecution and quite aside from the conspiracy count is that each one of these defendants can be held guilty of having participated in plans and enterprises in connection with the commission of crimes within the concentration camps themselves. Each of the various defendants participated in different ways, and it is the burden of the Prosecution to show the manner of participation by each of the defendants which we shall do.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that is exactly what the defense counsel mean. They want you to demonstrate in what manner each defendant participated in the common plan.
MR. McHANEY: Well, if the Tribunal please -
THE PRESIDENT: -- And to connect each defendant with the plan.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
MR. McHANEY: That is the normal burden of the prosecution in any case. But I have never heard it suggested that the prosecution must, at its peril, go through the evidence and say - with respect to each defendant - "This evidence applies to you." Then he comes in and says, "The other evidence does not apply to me. You have limited yourself. You have restricted yourself. This is the case right here, and that is all there is to it. I don't think that the prosecution can properly be required to do such a thing. We have to make out a case. We have to convince the Tribunal that we got a case.
THE PRESIDENT: And you have to connect the defendants with the case.
MR. MCHANEY: That is very true.
THE PRESIDENT: And you have to convince me that you have a case.
MR. McHANEY: And we have to show the Tribunal that we have a proper case.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think we are talking it out here. That is all the defense expects. What proof do you have that the defendant A is connected with the common plan, and so on - and so with defendant B.
MR. McHANEY: Your Honor, as I appreciate the suggestion of defense counsel, it means that the prosecution now sit down with all the documents in the record and go through it, and say document so and so, Prosecution Exhibit so and so applies to defendants A, B and C; Exhibit 2 applies to defendant so on and so forth, and that is a tremendous job, a very large undertaking, and one which we patently are unable to do. We have to show and prove how these defendants were connected with these things, but that even in the briefs won't necessarily require a taking up of each document.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it involves your indicating to the Court what proof you rely on.
MR. McHANEY: Well, certainly we do that, but that it in no way limits us. The Tribunal, for example, may take a very different view on certain documents in the record than the prosecution does. I don't Court No. II, Case No. 4.take it that because we don't stress the importance of one document, the court might not find some other more important.
I think that we are talking about ruling a somewhat, if not non-existent, but very serious problem. That is the defendant Klein; and Klein knows precisely the reason he is being charged with these crimes. It is in connection with the operation at Wewelsburg. And the defendant's counsel is certainly in an adequate position to search these documents as well as we are, and pick out those documents and those witnesses which are connected with Wewelsburg. They know very well, that is, he is not directly connected with any crime in Dachau. The same is true with respect to the defendant Mummenthey. He is laboring under no difficulty about why he is in this trial, and his connection with the crimes. And he knows that they are in connection with the DEST industries in Bohemia and Allach, which were under his direction and supervision, and I think that the direct examination of each of these defendants has demonstrated that these attorneys know very well what their defendants are charged with, and their connection with these crimes, because they are -
THE PRESIDENT: Well, they may form their own conclusion; but don't you think they are entitled to be told what the prosecution thinks about the implication of the defendants? They might not reach the same conclusions that you do. You are the party that is making the accusation.
MR. McHANEY: Well, of course, precisely - that will be done in the closing arguments, and in the briefs, but I have never heard it suggested in any criminal proceeding that before the final statements are made and before briefs are submitted that the prosecution stand up in a case of this scope and magnitude, with around 650 exhibits, and go through them and say at their peril, with respect to defendant A, the following documents apply, and you can forget about all the rest of them.
THE PRESIDENT: Don't you think the defendant though is entitled to know what you claim to have proved; whether you do it by saying it is in Document 1, 2 or 3 is not the point. Now you just said that all Court No. II, Case No. 4.you accuse Klein of is participation in the Wewelsburg project.
That is what the defense wants to know. What do you -
MR. McHANEY: Your Honor, please, I don't say that is all he is charged with. That is the manner of his participation. We say the position of the prosecution, probably speaking, is that this man was a member of this group or organization, the WVHA, one of the important purposes or tasks of which was to operate the concentration camps. We want to show in our view that that was a criminal system and that crimes were committed on a vast and systematic plan. This man, we say, can be found guilty, and should be found guilty, of those crimes by virtue of his participation primarily in the Wewelsburg operation. He was the Chief of Office VIII, as I recall. That was his position in this scheme of things, this operation.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, now -
MR. McHANEY: The things he did was in connection with Wewelsburg, and we say that is the string which ties that man in with his bundle of crimes.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, you're how announcing the theory of your Prosecution, which the defense wouldn't have known until after they had concluded their arguments if the Court hadn't pressed you for it.
MR. McHANEY: I'm very happy if I've shed any light here this morning; but I had thought that was something which was obvious from the time the Prosecution had made its opening statement.
THE PRESIDENT: You know, relying on the obvious is very dangerous in the trial of a lawsuit. You know about the counsel who relied upon the presumption that the Court knew the law.
MR. McHANEY: I know, your Honor, and I appreciate that both the Prosecution and the defense in any proceeding, criminal or civil, run certain risks. It's a part of the very nature of things. The thing I am objecting to is that the defense is now asking the prosecution to eliminate any such risks.
THE PRESIDENT: No, no, I don't think so at all. Even if you were bound by what you said, the Tribunal wouldn't be. I don't think this is an attempt to limit you or to circumscribe you. I think it's merely a demand for a revelation by you of what you claim to have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.
MR. McHANEY: Well, so that we can all be standing on the same footing here and know precisely what the argument concerns, I should like to hear in a mechanical way what it is proposed by the Defense that the Prosecution produce.
THE PRESIDENT: I can tell you in very few words. Follow the ancient Aglo-Saxon custom of the Prosecution opening the argument and closing it. That's all we are talking about. In both civil and criminal law that is the usual procedure. Even in debating the proponent, the affirmative, opens; the negative replies; and the affirmative closes.
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, I was laboring under the misapprehension that the last two attorneys who spoke were asking for something more than that.