A: Would you please repeat it?
THE PRESIDENT: Did you think it was wrong? Was it discriminatory? Of course it was discriminatory. But was it wrong?
MR. HIGGINS: I am having difficulty having the witness admit it was discriminatory.
THE PRESIDENT: It certainly was discriminatory on the face of it, wasn't it?
MR. HIGGINS: Yes, it was.
Q: (By Mr. Higgins) Do you think there was anything wrong in these Aryanization proceedings?
A: Certainly it wasn't a nice thing to do to the former owners, bat the fact of the actual handling of the matter was vested purely by the authorities concerned, who acted as purchaser. Nothing else was relevant to the procedure itself.
MR. HIGGINS: I have no further questions.
DR. BERGOLD: I am very happy to make the Court happy with the announcement that I need not put any further questions, after this cross-examination. I therefore conclude my case. I am still waiting for the witness Schwarz, whom the Court has ordered to appear here.
THE PRESIDENT: I believe the witness Morgen is to be called by some one eventually. I have forgotten which defendant it is who wants to call him. I think possibly Dr. Seidl - was it?
MR. HIGGINS: I believe, your Honor, it was in connection with the defendant Pohl.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we better not talk about it without Dr. Seidl being here.
DR. KIERER for Dr. SEIDL: If the Tribunal please, we will not call the witness Dr. Morgen. I don't know whether one of my colleagues will wish to call him.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we want to know the answer to that because inadvertently he was taken back to Dachau, and we have ordered him returned to Nurnberg. Now, does anybody want Dr. Morgen? I don't -- but does anybody else? Can you find out? Do you remember, Mr. Higgins? Certainly somebody wanted Dr. Morgen called as a witness and I can't remember who it was. We might ask the defendants individually whether anyone of them wants him.
DR. KIERER: The possibility exists.
THE PRESIDENT: Nobody wants Dr. Morgen!
DR. KIERER: If the Tribunal please, Dr. Hoffmann once spoke about wanting to produce the witness Dr. Morgen, but I am not sure whether he still wishes to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: Can we find Dr. Hoffmann in the next twenty minutes? Do you think he is in the building? Is he in another court?
DR. KIERER: I believe Dr. Hoffmann is not in the Palace of Justice now.
THE PRESIDENT: The point is, you see, that this is Friday, and I want to get word to Dachau to leave Dr. Morgen there is Dr. Hoffmann doesn't want him.
DR. BERGOLD: Dr. Hoffmann went to Munich to hear a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have a record of which counsel it was?
MR. HIGGINS: Your Honors, I believe I can get the story on this in a very few moments and I will let you know in ten minutes just how the story stands.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if it develops that he isn't wanted as a witness, we will get word to Dachau to leave him there and not bring him back here. He is probably wondering why he has got to retravel.
MR. HIGGINS: I will do that, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The other witness, Schwarz, will be ready Monday morning.
There is nothing we can do for fifteen minutes? Well, then, we will adjourn.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess until ninethirty hours Monday morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 0930 18 August 47)
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 18 August 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Toms presiding.
THE MARSHAL: 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.
DR. HOFFMANN(for the defendant Scheide): May it please the Tribunal, as witness Morgen is now on the witness stand, I should like to say this. I had requested Morgen s my witness; and meanwhile Morgen went to Dachau so that I did not have the possibility of preparing him, nor was I told that he would return or, in fact, had returned. I should, therefore, like to ask to postpone the interrogation of this witness by two days because I should talk to him first. I was not informed that he would come today; and as he had been in Dachau all the time, I could not talk to him before.
THE PRESIDENT: You know what you wanted to ask him? You know what information you wanted him to give as a witness, don't you?
DR. HOFFMAN: Oh, I know what I want to ask him; but I have a number of questions to put to him which I would have liked to put down in writing first. The interrogation probably will last a day, and I'm not really properly prepared yet.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, we might put on Schwarz and Karl. I understand Schwarz is here. I shouldn't think it would take Dr. Hoffmann and entire day to prepare, however.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you know whether Karl is here or not?
MR. ROBBINS: I believe he is, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will hear the witness Schwarz, then the witness Karl, and follow with Dr. Morgen.
No matter when it is, he will follow immediately after Karl. The Marshal may remove this witness.
DR. HOFFMANN: May it please the Tribunal, could the Tribunal perhaps make a ruling that Witness Dr. Morgen could be taken back to see me and not go to the cell first lest I lose time? If I had to file an application first, I would lose time again.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course. Where are these interviews conducted? There's a room provided for interviewing?
DR. HOFFMANN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And you are ready to do that now?
DR. HOFFMANN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, the Marshal, instead of returning the witness to the jail, will take him to the interrogation room. The witness Karl is in jail, isn't he?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, your Honor. May it please the Tribunal, if it meets with the approval of the Tribunal and Dr. Bergold, since our interrogator was questioned on the methods that he used in interrogating Schwarz, if Dr. Bergold has no objection, I should like to ask the interrogator for the defense who interrogated Schwarz some questions, just two or three.
THE PRESIDENT: Before the witness takes the stand?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, before the witness takes the stand.
DR. BERGOLD: I have no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold has no objection. Who is the interrogator, please?
MR. ROBBINS: I believe it was Dr. Bergold.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, did you do the interrogating?
DR. BERGOLD, Yes, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will not require Dr. Bergold to be sworn. We'll take his testimony without administering an oath.
(DR. FRIEDRICH BERGOLD, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:)
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Dr. Bergold, did you interrogate the witness Schwarz?
A. Yes, I did, in the presence of my secretary, Fraulein Herbst and an American Officer, in Dachau.
Q. Did you tell the witness Schwarz that the affidavit which he had given the prosecution might be held against him in a de-Nazification proceeding? Did you tell the witness Schwarz that the affidavit which he had given the prosecution might be held against him in a trial in which Schwarz would be a defendant?
A. No, I did not say anything about a de-Nazification trial of Schwarz.
Q. You didn't mention the de-Nazification trial of Schwarz?
A. No, I cannot remember any such thing. All I told him was that he had given an affidavit to an interrogating officer in the case of Pohl and others; and I wanted to interrogate him about that affidavit.
Q. You didn't tell him that that affidavit would be used against him or it might be used against him?
A. What affidavit do you mean? He gave two.
Q. The affidavit which he gave to the Prosecution.
A. No.
Q. You didn't tell him that the SS as an organization is being reborn today, reorganized, and that it would be unsafe to have given evidence against Higher SS officers?
A. No, most certainly not. My secretary can testify to that effect. Is my secretary present? No. You can call her immediately if you like. Not one word is true. As an attorney I would be the last person to make such an idiotic statement.
MR. ROBBINS: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Robbins, can you refer us to the volume where the first affidavit is to be found?
MR. ROBBINS: Your Honor, the number is NO-2169. It is in Book XVII, I believe. I think it is the last affidavit in Book XVII, the last document. May it please the Tribunal, while Schwarz is being called, I should like to distribute to the Tribunal and to defense counsel an affidavit which was obtained from the secretary who attended the first interrogation of Schwarz, in which she describes the methods used by the interrogator for the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes. I should like to mark this as Prosecution Exhibit 635 for identification.
DR. BERGOLD: May it please the Court, I should like to make a motion. In view of the somewhat unusual procedure on the part of the prosecution in the present case, I should like to ask to have my secretary, Fraulein Kaethe Herbst, whom I have sent for, heard as a witness about the facts of in what manner I conducted the interrogation of Schwarz and whether I made any such statements as were just put to me. I must say in an incomprehensible manner. I have been a lawyer for some time but never before did any official submit that I behaved in the manner as described by the prosecution. It is a mot unusual accusation which has been raised against me; and I believe I am justified in view of the long and honorable life I have led, in having the truth stated here.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, no one has accused you. No, one has accused you. No one has said that you acted improperly. Your answer stands uncontradicted. Your testimony from the witness stand up to this time is uncontradicted. You see, you have the German notion that you must prove your innocence. You don't have to do that. Until somebody accuses you, your denial will stand.
DR. BERGOLD: If the Tribunal please, there is a proverb that "Honor is as sensitive as the dust on the wings of a butterfly." The question put to me just now can only have come from somebody making allegations about what I am supposed to have said; and I think it is important that it is stated quite clearly that no such thing occurred.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you have stated that quite clearly, and nobody has contradicted you yet.
DR. BERGOLD: All right.
THE PRESIDENT: Just to start the week off with the usual confusion it now appears that the witness Schwarz has not arrived from Dachau. The Marshal called the jail this morning and was told he was here; and he calls the jail later and is told that he is not here. Either he is or he isn't; but he isn't available as a witness at the moment.
What about the witness Karl? Who wanted him called?
MR. ROBBINS: Karl is being called for cross examination by the defendant Eirenschmalz, and he is a witness for the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you ready to cross examine him, Counsel?
DR. VON STEIN (For defendant Eirenschmalz): Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It may take a few minutes before the witness is here. We'll just suspend. We are not in recess. We'll just leave the bench until the witness arrives.
HUBERT KARL, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, raise your right hand and repeat after me.
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: Be seated, please.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please, the Tribunal, there are two affidavits of the Defendant Karl. One is in Book XXIII, at page 67, Exhibit 572, NO-4007, which deals with construction matters of the WVHA. The second one, which the Prosecution made available to the defense several weeks ago, is Document NO-4154, which I should like to mark for identification Exhibit No. -
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: 636.
MR. ROBBINS: 636. There is also in front of the Tribunal Document NO-4123 which is a diagram of he Verwaltungsamt-SS under the Defendant Pohl, which is referred to in Karl's affidavit, and the chart is confirmed and sworn to by the witness Karl. I should like to mark this chart as Prosecution's Exhibit 637 for identification.
I believe that counsel for Defendant Eirenschmalz wishes to cross examine the witness.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. VON STEIN (For Defendant Eirenschmalz):Q.- Witness, in your two affidavits you described the construction service of the SS from 1933 onwards.
A.- Yes.
Q.- This goes back a long time, over ten years in fact, and as I shall now ask you questions, I would like to think very carefully how these things were handled ten years ago. You are only to give facts to the Court, and if you don't know something please tell us so, and in particular when you only assume something. Do you have the two affidavits?
A.- Yes.
Q.- I shall confine myself on the whole to the affidavit in Volume XXIII, because it is in that affidavit where you say all these things which concern my client. First of all you said that the construction service in 1933 consisted of a building office in Dachau, is that correct?
A.- Yes. In 1933, on the 25th of July, I joined the Administrative Office, the Verwaltungs*mt, and at that time, the so-called construction department was founded. No actual building was being done by the office itself. It was purely office work.
Q.- How many people did you have in your department?
A.- I was alone.
Q.- You were alone? In your affidavit you described this building office as the central office. By a central office one usually means that other offices were subordinated to that office. Was Dachau the only building office in 1933?
A.- In 1933 I knew only of Dachau, the building office Dachau.
Q.- As you have said before, it was a very small office?
A.- It was only for the Dachau garrison at first.
Q.- In what year did Eirenschmalz join the construction service of the SS?
A.- I cannot give you the exact date. In 1935 I rejoined the Administrative Office in 1935 Eirenschmalz was there, roughly in the spring of '35 or perhaps in the last few months of 1934.
Q.- What was the position in 1935 concerning construction service?
A.- Eirenschmalz at that time was there and carried out repair work and maintenance work for these special SS units.
Q.- You mean the political units?
A.- Yes. I did not help him there. I merely worked on the place near Berchtesgaden nera Obersalzbcrg, some barracks for the guard units at Obersalzberg.
Q.- I would like to know first of all how the organization was in 1935. Was it still a small department which was still being built up?
A.- Yes, it was a small department, a construction department. Whether at that time Department V/4 existed, I don't know. I think that was later on, I think by the autumn of 1935 or the beginning of 1936.
Q.- How many people were working at that time in that department roughly? I know it goes back a decade.
A.- I can only recall that Eirenschmalz was there. Likewise the Dachau employees I would include in this department.
Q.- No, I shall speak about Dachau specially.
A.- I wouldn't know about anybody else.
A.- Your duties in 1935 were, as you told us, that you constructed barracks for these special units?
A.- Yes, the repair and maintenance work.
Q.- Not new constructions?
A.- They were buildings we had taken over in Obersalzberg there was a barrack and the new construction.
Q.- Were these tasks for the Verfuegungsgruppe, the special task unit?
A.- They weren't called special task unit yet at that time. I know it was for the guard companies, and I believe the chief of that company was Dietrich, or some such name.
Q.- In 1936 the first reorganization was carried out. Please describe how that was done, why it was done. I shall refresh your memory. Please take your affidavit, NO-4007, in Paragraph 17.
A.- Eirenschmalz -
Q.- Let me ask you a question first. You say at the end of that paragraph Eirenschmalz was the man in charge of the department but only organizationally, whereas all orders came from Pohl.
A.- That was at the time when the construction department was made into a main department.
Q.- What was the reason to make a main department?
A.- That was a purely organizational extension as things grew and develop.
Q.- In the administrative office was an organizational chart ever drawn up at the time?
A.- Several charts were drawn up at the time, or letters describing the organization. Whenever there was an additional extension a new organizational chart would be issued.
Q.- There are two possibilities; there is one organizational chart which would be transmitted to all the other departments, or there is the possibility that Pohl from occasion to occasion would give you orders and say, "We shall do this or that," and that you could also describe as an organizational chart Witness, this chart which you have reconstructed from your memory, do you know this plan?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Is this plan in the same way as you have drawn it up at the time and was it circulated among the other departments, or did you draw up that chart your self?
A.- No, I didn't do it under my own initiative. I saw it as it was circulated of course. I can't tell you -- I certainly saw it I know.
Q.- You saw it? Were you in charge of a department?
A.- Yes, Department V/5/B.
Q.- In that plan you describe Eirenschmalz as the man in charge of the construction service under V-5. Was the construction department organized into various departments under "A" to "D", and then beyond that you have made statements about all the other departments in the administrative office of the SS. Do you have full insight into these things also?
A.- I did not have any official contacts with the other departments except for the personnel department and the legal department. That is to say, there were a few employees who also worked in my department.
Q.- How is it then that you know of the duties these other departments did?
A.- That was common knowledge.
Q.- What about your own department, construction service? Did you and the other departments have precise contact all the time?
A.- No, we only had a sort of general knowledge.
Q.- General Knowledge? What do you mean by general knowledge? Assumptions, you mean, or did you have any real facts and documents on which you support your theories?
A.- I did not have any evidence or documents, but I do know that Eirenschmalz dealt with the special task units, and as far as I know, with concentration camps also. Dinkel who succeeded there in the Dachau garrison, and Flier who built the Dachau settlement, I saw that myself.
Q.- Well, let's talk more about the plan. Looking at the chart Eirenschmalz should have done two things. First he should have been in charge of the V-5 main department, V-5, and you say more about that in your affidavit, and you say, in fact, that the other departments, A through D, from an organizational point of view were under Wirenschmalz but received their orders in all practical matters from Pohl. Witness, if we have a main department chief surely it would be the usual thing for him to address his orders to the other departments, that he is allowed to do so in fact, but according to your affidavit it was there handled in a different way it seems. You say yourself that Pohl would issue professional orders to all main department chiefs.
A.- As far as construction matters were concerned, yes. I don't know about the other main departments.
Q.- We only want to speak about construction matters here. Witness, you say, in other words, that all departments A to D, received their orders from Pohl alone and direct?
A.- Any professional orders, yes. Eirenschmalz, as main department chief, was called in whenever these things were circulated, and it would reach Eirenschmalz because he was in charge of the organizational side. He had no other task as a main department chief.
Q.- As one reads your affidavit the term "organizational" leads one to believe that Eirenschmalz would have something to say, out now I take it that the organization, that is to say the large directives, were issued by Pohl?
A.- Yes.
Q.- These tasks of Eirenschmalz were carried out by him in his own department and were confined only to tasks of a subordinate nature?
A.- Yes, quite.
Q.- In other words, the term "main department chief" is a mistaken one, is it not?
A.- All I can remember is that on the organizational chart he was listed as a main department chief, but the chiefs of the various subdepartments apart from his own had nothing to do with it in professional matters.
Q.- Witness, we are not so much interested in what the chart says. We want to know how things worked out in actual fact.
A. In actual fact the position was that the various department chiefs, A through D, received their orders immediately from the administrative chief.
Q. What disciplinary power did Eirenschmalz ***
A. None at all.
Q. Were Departments A through D independent ones?
A. Yes, in that sense they were.
Q. They were merely coordinated on the plan?
A. They were independent of Eirenschmalz, I mean.
Q. Completely independent of him?
A. Certainly.
Q. I now want to talk about Department V-5/A of which Eirenschmalz was in charge. I want to ask you again, how did you know what tasks Eirenschmalz really carried out from '36 to '38? Witness, don't base yourself now on the organizational chart. Tell us precisely from your knowledge and your own experience, what did Eirenschmalz do in those years?
A. At that time he was the man in charge of the barracks established and constructed by the Reich Administration for the SS Special Task Units. I know that because our offices adjoined each other and there was a connecting door. For that purpose Eirenschmalz frequently traveled.
Q. That is to say that Eirenschmalz's tasks consisted -- his main tasks were construction matters for these Special Task Units?
A. Yes, for the largest part.
Q. What else did he do?
A. I know that an official of his in those years, '36 to '38, although I don't know the exact time, was ordered to go to Dachau from the administrative office in order to erect and establish the new concentration camp Dachau.
Q. Who was that?
A. Brecht, who was a civilian employee.
Q. Where did he come from?
A. I am afraid I can't tell you.
Q. Under whom was he?
A. Under Eirenschmalz.
Q. When he actually carried out this work, he still was under Eirenschmalz?
A. I am unable to tell you.
Q. Do you know who owned the Dachau site?
A. Only from hearsay.
Q. What do you know from hearsay?
A. I know that it was owned by the state and was administered by the Munich office. There was a civilian employee in charge there, a man called Dinkel, and when in the autumn of 1934, I think, I am not quite sure, the transfer was carried out to the Party, the NSDAP, I think it must have been about October '34, Reich Treasurer Schwarz was present in Dachau also. That must have been the same period of time when the installations, the concentration camp installations, as they were called, were transferred to the Party. I don't know the actual contract.
Q. Could you say the SS installations came away from the administration in Munich and were transferred to the Party then?
A. Constructions were carried out in Dachau at the time in '34.
Q. No, no, we are now talking about '36 and '38.
A. At that time it was already in the hands of the Party. Well, in '35 I left Dachau and I re-established contact with Dachau and their garrison when I constructed the barracks and the nursing home in Dachau. I had nothing to do with the other construction tasks. I don't know what was built because I had nothing to do with the site except for those two constructions, the home for nurses, and the barracks for young cadets. I went to the area of the barracks of the Deathhead Units, but I did not come anywhere near the concentration camp. I only came in the western gate.
Q. Witness, we have now confused the years again. I want to know mainly what Eirenschmalz did, not what you did. We had reached the point in 1936 or 1938 when you told us that Eirenschmalz was in charge of V-5/A.
A. Yes.
Q. And then we want to talk about Dachau, I shall ask you now, what did Eirenschralz have to do with Dachau?
A. At what period of time do you mean?
Q. In the first years, let's say from 1935 onwards, because in your affidavit you speak of the period from '36 to '38 only.
A. At that time, 1935, when I was still in charge of the construction office in Dachau, Eirenschmalz was not in Dachau as far as I can recall.
Q. Could you say he had nothing to do with the Dachau project?
A. No.
Q. Very well. Now, let's talk about 1936. What about 1936? Who was in charge of these Dachau projects?
A. The civilian employee Dinkel.
Q. He was the construction manager?
A. Yes, he was the local construction manager at Dachau. He was first of all in Munich, and he was in charge of the construction site in Dachau. Of course he had employees working under him.
Q. That was Dinkel?
A. Yes, that was Dinkel.
Q. You said just now he was an independent manager. Did he have anything to do with Eirenschmalz?
A. No, not with Eirenschmalz. The exception there was only the concentration camp, the new construction of the concentration camp in '36 or '37.
Q. Witness, is it possible that the new construction of the concentration camp established contact with Eirenschmalz because the site belonged to the NSDAP, for which reason Eirenschmalz was concerned with this as a building police officer, to supervise these things?
A. That is quite possible. I couldn't say so myself, but the possibility exists
Q. What did he have to do with the new construction anyway? You said there was an independent building manager there.
A. Well, the position is---- Perhaps I can explain it with the the SS settlement which belonged to the garrison. Dinkel had nothing to do with that. Again there was an independent department chief appointed. The position is not that the whole of the Dachau project was under Dinkel. Various details had been cut out and given somebody else, such as in my case the home for nurses and the barracks for cadets.
Q. Well, is it possible that things were very confusing there and split up?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell us now who gave the orders in Dachau?
A. For what?
Q. For new construction.
A. Herr Pohl.
Q. Pohl? You mentioned Buchenwald in your affidavit also as a task of which Eirenschmalz was supposed to be in charge.
A. Yes, that was as early as 1938 when I heard of that for the first time. Eirenschmalz sent along a man called Riedel as my future subordinate or assistant. I can't tell you which.
Q. You just mentioned this man. I deduce from that Eirenschmalz was concerned with concentration camp tasks and TV.
A. As Reidel was in Munich at the time, he was with Eirenschmalz.
Q. What did he want to do?
A. I don't know.
Q. Did he introduce you two officially to each other, or was it a private introduction?
A. It was on the occasion when we visited an art exhibition in May 1938, in May or June '38.
Q. And under whom was Reidel working at the time?
A. I don't know. Eirenschmalz introduced him to me as my future colleague or subordinate, I don't know which, as I was in charge of TV and concentration camps.
Q. From whom were you to take this over?
A. Well, some of it I was told to take over by Pohl himself, the preliminary work for the labor camps at Flossenburg and Mauthausen.
Q. What other tasks were there, other concentration camps you were going to take over, or what?
A. Well- I knew from hearsay about Dachau. Of course Dachau I knew anyway, and then I heard of Buchenwald.
Q. You had worked on that before?
A. I am not quite sure.
Q. Did Eirenschmalz work on these things before?
A. All I know was that some heads must have been with Eirenschmalz. What he did for Buchenwald and how I can't tell you.
Q. Witness, then I must put to you that in paragraph 17 of your affidavit you gave an example for the Special Task Units, more barracks for the Deathhead Units, new constructions, and also for the Buchenwald concentration camp. How am I understand that? Is that the sort of work V-5/A was in charge of at the time?