A It must have been not more than three meters.
Q Don't you think that you would have been chased away when such a conversation took place?
A No; because the vehicles were there and we were working on the vehicles. We were just loading food on the vehicles and the deliver of the vehicle had to stand outside it so that he could see just what was being loaded on his vehicle, so that later on no charges could be raised against him that something was missing. He had to know exactly what was put in his vehicle. Therefore, nobody could move away from his place of work there.
Q I am putting this to you because in numerous cases you always were in the immediate proximity of the commanders.
A That was the result of the fact that the commanders also stayed near us and because their meeting place used to be the place where we had to work, and where we worked, after all, there would be the officers from the Food Platoon.
Q I am not coming to Shitomir. You have stated that Oberscharfuehrer Suert had shot six Jews there, before your eyes?
A Not before my eyes; I didn't say that--I heard about it.
Q You heard about it. What was the name of the Oberscharfuehrer?
A It was Suert.
Q. Suert?
A Yes.
Q And he was from the Bakery company. However, you only know about this incident from hearsay?
A Yes, I only know of it from hearsay.
Q I come now to Byelaya-Tserkow. According to your description, a Jew appeared in your bivouac?
A Yes, apparently, he didn't know any more where he should go. He tried to hide someplace. From our valley, where our bivouac was Court No. II, Case No. 4.located, one could not see clearly against the bushes that vehicles were parked there.
Q Let me ask you this; I haven't asked you a question yet. Who brought this Jew and how did he get into that position there?
A Who brought the Jew, we didn't know at first, and it was only found out later on that a transport of Jews was taken through Byelaya-Tserkow, and I assume that this Jew had succeeded to escape from this transport.
Q Was he brought into your bivouac by other SS men?
A No.
Q In what area did this Jew appear? Did he appear in the Food unit or did he appear in the bivouac or the Bakery Company?
A He appeared in the bivouac area of the Food. Unit.
Q Consequently, the other members of the Supply Office must have observed the incident?
A They did not observe the incident, but a few people, like SS-man Torn--and I can't recall any other names at the moment because it is impossible for me to recall all the names; just what the names of the comrades were.
Q What happened to the Jew?
A Well, he was shot by Sturmbannfuehrer Tschentscher. When he heard the shouting of the people in the bivouac that a civilian was running through the camp, and then the shout went up that a Jew was shot.
Q Where was he shot?
A In the bivouac.
Q What bivouac?
A In the bivouac of the Food Office.
Q Besides you, all the other members of the Supply Office were able to observe this incident?
A Yes, and especially Torn who helped in the pursuit of this Jew. Apparently they wanted to hold the Jew.
Q What reason did Tschentscher give for shooting this Jew?
A He didn't give us any reason at all. Once he had accomplished his deed, Tschentscher walked away.
Q Just how many shots did Tschentscher fire?
A Three or four shots.
Q What did he fire with?
A He used his pistol; I assume it was his pistol because he help it in his hands.
Q How far away were you from where the incident took place?
A It must have been eleven or twelve meters.
Q Eleven or twelve meters?
A Yes.
Q What was done with the Jew then?
A I had work to do at my vehicle, and I didn't look into the matter any more.
Q You didn't look into the matter any more?
A No.
Q You didn't see whether he was dead?
A I assumed that after four or five shots were fired, he was dead, since it could be clearly seen that he was about to collapse after the first shot, and he didn't have the strength to get up.
Q I am now coming to the incident at Fidjocki. Witness, what is insubordination?
A I don't know that name.
Q You don't know it?
A No; it is a foreign word, I think.
Q This morning, when the question was put to you by the Prosecution, whether Tschentscher had pulled out his pistol against Kirsch because he had been guilty of insubordination, you answered the question in the affirmative.
A Well, he refused to accept any orders.
Q Well, now you know it again.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A This morning the interpreter said not complying with orders and he did not use this foreign word.
Q -- This morning the word insubordination has been used.
A Yes, but not by the interpreter; I only heard that he refused to accept the orders.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute.
DR. VON STAKELBERG (For Defendant Fanslau): Your Honor, before the Tribunal adjourns for today, I would like to recall once more my request that the witness should be asked not to talk about the cross examination and the results of the presentation of evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, let's see what the word was which the witness heard. How was the word insubordination translated?
INTERPRETER SPITZ: I used both words: insubordination and the German word, Befehlsverweigerung.
THE PRESIDENT: This morning -
DR. KRAUS: Your Honor, I cannot state it for certain, but I want to inform you that it is my opinion that the word insubordination was used in the German translation this morning in that form.
INTERPRETER SPITZ: Both words were used.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness remembers it; the interpreters remember it. Do you remember it, Dr. Schmidt?
DR. VON STAKELBERG: I don't remember it because I don't hear the German translation.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes.
That will be all for tonight. Before we adjourn, witness, I want to caution you not to talk to anybody about what has happened in court here today.
WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You are not to discuss it, not to talk about it, to anybody, because you are coming back here tomorrow. Do you understand?
WITNESS: Yes Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: And will you do that.
WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until tomorrow morning at ninethirty.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until nine-thirty tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 20 August 1947, at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of Military Tribunal II, Case LV, in the matter of the United States of America, against Oswald Pohl, et al., defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 20 August 1947, 1100-1630, Justice Toms, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their 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 courtroom.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, counsel for the defendant Sommer wants to interrupt the testimony of this witness, and put on a witness for Sommer because his witness, Sanner, has to return to Dachau, I believe it is. It is rather inconvenient to do that, but I am willing to make that concession, and I think that the defense counsel probably are also.
THE PRESIDENT: This witness may be withdrawn. If there is no objection he may remain in the courtroom while the defendant Sommer's witness is here.
Upon certificate of the prison physician, the defendant Volk will be excused from further attendance of this session of court because of illness, until further notice.
Mr. ROBBINS: The witness Sanner will be here in just one moment, I should like to say first, this is a Prosecution witness, who is being called for cross examination. We have put in an affidavit of the witness Sanner, which was put in on cross examination of Mummenthey, and if it pleases the Tribunal, we would like to ask him just a very few questions before he is cross examined.
THE PRESIDENT: That is Sanner, S-E-N-N-E-R.
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, your Honor.
DR. KRAUSS: (Dr. Krauss for the defendant Tschentscher.) If the Tribunal please, may I say something?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. KRAUSS: I would like to pass on some information on the cross examination of this witness. So far as I know defense counsel for the defendant Pohl is essentially interested in the interrogation of this witness. This is a surprise witness at this moment. Would it perhaps be possible to arrange for the presence of the defense counsel for the defendant Pohl. Could you wait until he is here? I am informed, if the Tribunal please, that my colleague Dr. Seidl has been informed.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Dr. Seidl in the building?
DR. KRAUSS: I think so, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Robbins, would you have one of your associates call defense information center. He may be there.
MR. ROBBINS: Your Honor, I noticed also that Mummenthey's attorney is not present, and the affidavit of this witness gave also information concerning Mummenthey. I assume that counsel would notify his associate.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, they did not know he was going to be put on at this moment. Let's find his affidavit, first. Have your the reference of that?
MR. ROBBINS: It is 3104, which was put in by Mr. McHaney on cross examination of Mummenthey.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have the exhibit reference?
MR. ROBBINS: I don't have it with me.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL: It is 621.
MR. ROBBINS: Exhibit No. 621. I am afraid, your Honor it is not in one of the books as yet. It will be in Book 26. It is some of those looseleaf exhibits. 519 is the last exhibit in Book 25.
THE PRESIDENT: Well; let's swear this witness anyway.
WOLFGANG SANNER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: Stand up and raise your right hand and repeat this oath after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth, and will withhold and add nothin.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
MR. ROBBINS: We have just a very few questions we would like to ask him, and if the Court please, I think it would shorten the proceedings if I could have Mr. Wolf ask him just a few questions in German.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WOLF:
Q Witness, will you please give us your full name?
A Wolfgang Sanner.
Q Have you a nickname?
A My usual name is "Wolfgang".
Q Witness, you gave us an affidavit on 25 April 1947, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q About that affidavit I want to have a few additional explanatory words by way of explanation of paragraph 44. Perhaps I will put a few more questions to you about it. Is it correct that in 1944 and 1945, as is stated in your affidavit of 25 April 1947, such letters reached you which were signed "I.V.Sommer" on them, which was during the period of time when you were working on labor assignment in Mauthausen?
A Yes.
Q Is it also correct that in a number of these letters Sommer mentioned inmates by name, and gave orders about certain inmates. What sort of orders were they?
A So far as I can remember there were three letters that inmates were not to be transferred to other camps, or, else, inmates, who somehow, were not to be employed in the Camp Mauthausen in some labor assignment, or, were not to leave the camp.
Q What happened after that to the inmates who were named by Sommer in this letter?
AAfter approximately three or five days, we received notification that these inmates had died.
Q Were most of these inmates foreigner?
A Yes, so far as I can remember they were Russians and Poles.
Q What deduction did you make from the notification of fatalities and Sommer's letters?
A The deduction I reached was that this notification of fatalities was connected with Sommer's letter, because liquidations were carried out three or five days later.
Q What were these orders which reached your department labor assignment from Sommer usually called?
A We usually called them when inmates had died "Special Treatment".
Q Is the term "Special Treatment" as you have described it in paragraph 44 in your affidavit of 25 April 1947 to be understood in that sense?
A Yes.
MR. WOLF: That is all.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. BELZER: (For the defendant Karl Sommer)
Q Witness, before putting any other questions to you, I want to say a few words about this subject. Can you state before this Tribunal at what time the Office D-II was told about the names of inmates by the special department for labor assignments in concentration camps?
A The names of the inmates were communicated in letters to D-II, as I said before.
Q What were these letters concerned with? What type of inmates were they?
A These inmates were skilled workers.
Q You stated that in these letters, which you saw with Sommer's signature, orders had been given that those inmates, whose names were communicated had been skilled workers, were either not to be transferred from Mauthausen to another camp, or, if they had been transferred from another camp to Mauthausen. They were not to be used for labor assignment, is that correct?
A Yes, quite.
Q This content of the letters such as you have referred to surely pre-supposes that previously other orders had been issued. For instance, in one case an order by Office D-II that inmates whose names were mentioned who were to work as skilled workers, locksmiths, carpenters, or anything like that were to be transferred from Concentration Camp Mauthausen to Concentration Camp Dachau, for instance?
A Yes.
Q And then came the orders of which you have spoken here, which were allegedly signed by Sommer, that those transfers of inmates were not to be carried out?
AAs I do not remember the whole of this correspondence, it is possible that there were other letters previous to the one I have mentioned.
Q Well the office D-II must had these names from somewhere?
A The names were being communicated by the camp.
Q Where and when?
A I remember, for instance, special directives which stated that inmates who were skilled workers were to be transferred to another camp. On the basis of these orders the camp communicated the names, and from that whole matter, of course, ensued a correspondence, saying that they were not to be transferred; or that they might be transferred, or, that they were dead, that also happened, and other things of that sort.
Q Therefore, they were all skilled workers, were they?
A Yes.
Q Do you know how these skilled workers were selected?
A I am afraid I can not tell you, because I was not present when they were being selected.
Q. Do you know that in these cases in which the individual industrial enterprises requested skilled workers experts were sent to test them for their skill?
A. Yes, I know that in the case of Mauthausen sometimes qualification experts who tested them for that qualification arrived in camp.
Q. These testers selected the people who had been requested by them, and if they thought that they could meet their requirements their names, or the names of these inmates, were submitted?
A. Yes. I can only speak here from experiences which I heard from other inmates, because, when these tests were given, I remember two or three occasions of that sort. I was not present.
Q. And in those letters to which you have referred in paragraph 44 of your affidavit we are concerned with orders that the first order of transfer was not to be carried out?
A. Now, after three years, I cannot remember the precise content of the letters. All I know is, as I stated before, that the letters stated that these and these inmates were not to be transferred, or must not be sent to another camp.
Q. Was any reason given why these transfers had to be discontinued?
A. It is possible but I cannot say with any certainty that the letters stated that on the basis of special order or directive, but I cannot tell you that for certain what these letters said.
Q. Can you say with any certainty, or can you not, that the term "special treatment" was mentioned in these letters at all?
A. No.
Q. You cannot say that for certain, can you?
A. No.
Q. In how many cases had this happened, of which you have spoken?
A. About three cases.
Q. And in those three cases, after you received those letters, you found out about the fatalities in the report of these people. Where did they die?
A. In the punitive company of the Mauthausen camp, as we called it. They did die.
Q. Who gave the order that these people should be transferred to the punitive company?
A. I cannot tell you whether it was the labor allocation leader or the camp leader or the protective camp leader, or as a result of conference between those two officials. I really don't know. Perhaps the commander Fiereis was also present.
Q. I wish to ask you the question at this occasion to whom was the labor assignment leader of the Mauthausen camp subordinated?
A. To the camp commander.
Q. Not to Office D-II?
A. No. Office D-II -- the letters from Office D-II in some cases reached the offices of the labor allocation leader, but the mail went on principle to the commandant of the camp.
Q. Did the labor allocation leader in the Mauthausen camp have also other tasks apart from directing labor allocation work?
A. Yes.
Q. What did he do?
A. The leader of the protective custody camp in Mauthausen was for approximately half a year also the protective custody camp leader, who usually looked after the duties connected with that office.
Q. Who in that period of time when you were in the concentration camp of Mauthausen were the labor allocation leaders?
A. Obersturmfuehrer Schuetz, Oberscharfuehrer Luetscha, and Obersturmfuehrer Dittmann.
Q. Where are these people now?
A. Hauptsturmfuehrer Schuetz is, I am told, dead. Oberscharfuehrer Leutscha is in Dachau, and Obersturmfuehrer Dittmann is supposed to be also in Dachau.
Q. Do you know the defendant Sommer?
A. No
Q. You only know his name?
A. Yes.
Q. How do you know that the defendant Sommer is called "Karl"?
A. I read that in some decrees which in the organization of the D-II it appeared, or whole of the WVHA.
Q. If I remember right, you quite spontaneously, without my soliciting it, told me that Sommer was always -- was never very much liked by the camp commandants. In fact, you told me that they hated him, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You also gave me the information why you told me this. Will you repeat this before this Tribunal?
A. Sommer was regarded at Mauthausen as an extremely exacting worker who kept issuing orders concerning the statistics which were to be sent to Berlin. He always complained about these statistics.
Q. What did he complain about of which had happened, for instance?
A. That the commandant of Mauthausen gave the order that inmates who were used some days as skilled workers should be sent over there. In some cases for private purposes of the camp, special work for the commandant was ordered, for instance, for the leader of the protective custody camp, etc. If the report did not clarify that point, then a letter from Sommer would come in immediately asking for information.
Q. In your affidavit you repeatedly made reference to statistics which were being sent to D-II. Did you mean by these statistics the monthly survey which is contained in the files submitted by the prosecution, and which I showed you yesterday?
A. Yes.
DR. BELZER: This is Document NO-1961, which the prosecution has submitted.
Q. What other reports were sent by the labor allocation office of the camp to Office D-II?
A. There were no constant reports which were to be sent regularly. It happened occasionally that Office D-II, on the basis of a teletype letter, requested special statistics concerning the number of inmates, the number of skilled workers, and things of that sort.
Q. Did you know the official regulation for the labor allocation and the issue of bonuses?
A. I know a regulation for the labor allocation. Whether we were ever given the whole full bunch of orders I do not know, as letters or directives issued concerning the inmates were not shown to us - as far as they were secret.
Q. When was this service regulation issued?
A. I believe it must have been in 1943.
Q. Could it have been later?
A. Possibly.
Q. In the period of time when you were an inmate in the Mauthausen concentration camp was there any change made concerning the roll calls?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the change?
A. The roll calls - I believe in the last half of 1944 - were decreased in number, that is to say, we no longer had three roll calls daily but only two. The noon roll call was discontinued. Later, in the last months, if I remember correctly, the evening roll call also was discontinued.
DR. BELZER: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any cross examination by other defense counsel?
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. FROESCHMANN (for defendant Mummenthey):
Q. Witness, you said just now that the punitive company had been a feature of the concentration camp life.
A. Yes.
Q. That punitive company, in other words, was decided on by the commandant?
A. Yes, the commandant decided who was to go into the punitive company.
Q. May I then from the point of view of your affidavit NO-3104, and in particular under paragraphs 30 and 31, ask you to make a small correction. I think you probably were the victim there of misconception on the part of the interrogator. "The punitive company of Mauthausen also belonged to the DEST company."
A. Perhaps I could explain something about that. The punitive company of Mauthausen was charged in the accounts to DEST, on their account.
Q. It was not part of the DEST?
A. It was part of it in as much as they went to the quarry together with the detachments of the DEST.
Q. But if you use the word "belonged" to DEST, of course, one is apt to assume that it was simply part of the property of DEST. The inmates who went out to work had been supplied by the commandant's office. The commandant had decided when they were to work. Therefore, that is how you meant that word "belonged", I suppose.
A. Yes. Also in as much as DEST, of course, had requested these people.
Q. Oh, yes, certainly. All I wanted to clarify was that the term "belonged to DEST" was not to be understood to the effect that this punitive company was, as it were, formed by DEST. But it was formed and put together by the commandant and sent over there in order to work for DEST?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Then I wanted to ask you this: Under paragraph 32 you refer to a quarry of concentration camp Mauthausen. What did you mean by that?
A. I meant the quarry which was used by DEST for their work and which belonged to DEST.
Q. Wasn't that what was known as Wiener Graben?
A. Yes.
Q. And in paragraph 33 you speak of some steps leading to the quarry. Is that also referred to as Wiener Graben?
A. Yes.
Q. Then would you please look at paragraph 37 in the affidavit. There you say - and I shall quote: "In the second half of 1941 we received Russian prisoners of war in the Mauthausen concentration camp. In winter 1941 and 1942, 200 or 300 of those Russian prisoners of war were working in the Mauthausen quarry."
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know anything about the fact that these Russian prisoners of war were used in order to obtain skilled workers for the stone mason industry? Were they to be trained?
A. I know that young Russians were trained for the stone mason industry. Whether these Russians - they were small boys, 15 or 16 years old - were prisoners of war I don't know, I can't tell you for certain.
Q. May I in this connection ask you to tell the Tribunal, in order to avoid misunderstanding, what is meant by this re-training - what you mean in German when you say somebody is being re-trained?
A. These young Russians were used in order to learn the profession of a stone mason. They had their own work shops in the camp where they were accommodated, in a block of their own, in part of a block, and worked - as I heard - in the quarry in a special hut where the stone masons were working.
Q. In other words, we have in this re-training no training in the sense of national socialist ideology?
A. No, no, certainly not.
Q. Another question. In paragraph 40 you speak of releases.
A. Yes.
Q. ---which were to be carried out in the Mauthausen camp. Let me ask you first of all: Where does your knowledge come from concerning these releases?
A. It very frequently happened that my chief called me into his office and gave me the name of an inmate, telling me to look up his file card to see where this inmate was working. I then saw on his desk - as we as inmates were very interested in this - letters which roughly read like this: "Inmate X has been suggested for his release and we want a report about his conduct."
Q. Did the commandant's office at Mauthausen camp comply with this request? Did they give good conduct reports?
A. No, there never were good conduct reports given, as far as releases were concerned.
Q. If and when a request for release had been submitted, did the commandant's office contact DEST at Mauthausen?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know that DEST, with its main administration in Berlin, took the point of view as a matter of principle to agree always to releases, but, of course, that they needed a substitute for whomever they lost by way of release? Do you know that?
A. No. All I know is that the Obersturmfuehrer who was my chief said to me, when the index said this inmate was a stone mason or a skilled worker in the quarry, he cannot be released.
Q. Do you know anything about the fact that the labor exchange in Germany frequently took the workers out of one enterprise and sent them to another enterprise?
A. I heard about that, but as I was in the camp more or less throughout the war, I cannot say anything about that from my own knowledge.
Q. What I wanted to ask you is whether you knew of similar occurrences from your activity in Mauthausen camp that the concentration camp of Mauthausen took an inmate away from one place of work and sent him to another firm, and that the firm opposed this. Have you ever heard of such occurrences?
A. No, I have not.
Q Then about paragraph 41. You speak there of 2,000 Dutch Jews who joined you in fall of 1941 or the early summer of 1942. Were those Jews allocated to the punitive company?
A Yes they were all of them sent to the punitive company.
DR. FROESCHMANN: I have no further questions, if the Tribunal please.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. SEIDL: (For defendant Oswald Pohl)
Q Witness, in paragraph 42 of your affidavit you speak of food experiments. When were these experiments carried out?
A I believe in 1942 or 1943; it might have been 1944.
Q 1942, 1943, or 1944?
A Yes, I am afraid I cannot remember the exact date.
Q On how many inmates were these experiments carried out?
A There were about several hundred inmates. It was called Eastern Food.
Q But in your affidavit you said that about a thousand Russian prisoners of war had been used for these experiments.
A Yes, new experiments were being made all the time. On one occasion three or four hundred inmates would be given for about three months the Eastern Diet - as it was called - some sort of porridge. Other inmates after another period of time were given another porridge which would form another type of diet. This went on and on, about a total of one thousand inmates were used for this Eastern Diet in the course of time.
Q Were they civilian inmates or prisoners of war?
A They were prisoners of war.
Q Of what did this porridge consist, which the inmates were given to eat?
A I never saw it myself. I know about this matter through the camp Elder of the Mauthausen who carried it out and to whom I talked sometime about the fatality reports which reached us.
Q Do you know who gave the order to have these food experiments carried out?
A No, I could not tell you.
Q Have you made any observations about the type of effect which the experiments and the diet had on the inmates?
A The food had, as several doctors and others said, -- the effect was dysentary, which led to death.
Q Did you yourself observe that inmates died as a result?
A I did not see it myself. I was in the hospital and I saw the inmates who died there, and so I asked, what is the matter with him, and then I was told he was given this miserable Eastern Diet.
Q Can you tell me with any certainty that these inmates who died had not died from another illness? Are you quite certain they didn't?
AAll I can say is that the inmates were healthy, they did not go out to work; they were only in their block, they could not leave it, were not beaten for that reason, were not given any hard work they were there among themselves - and I could not think of any other reason than if they would have had an infectious disease we would have heard.
Q Can you tell me what the purpose of these experiments was?
A No, I could not tell you.
Q You say that they were a dietician's experiments; surely you must have some idea what the purpose was behind this idea.
A I assume that the idea was, as the inmates were not given any bread, no soup, but only this porridge, that a special test was to be carried out to see how long someone could subsist on that type of diet. They were not used for work.
Q It depended, in other words, on the way the experiments were carried out whether or not damage was done to a man's health because otherwise you could simply give them something else to eat, is that correct?