Q. Did you know that diamond cutters were supposed to be sent there?
A. Yes, I saw the diamond cutters myself.
Q. Will you please tell this Tribunal the result of your investigation?
A. Yes, when I visited the camp at Herzogenbusch I saw a diamond cutting plant. In his diamond-cutting shop most of the diamond cutters from Amsterdam more working. The diamonds which were being out there came from the extermination camps, they were the personal property of the Jews formerly. The diamonds were then recut in order to enable these people to sell them outside, abroad, without having to be afraid to have anybody else find out the origin of these diamonds. In Herzogenbusch I realized another crime of the Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl. Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl had given the order to the camp commander in case of an invasion to have all the inmates shot. That order was so atrocious for the simple reason that the inmates of the concentration camp of Herzogenbusch for the largest part consisted of women and inmates who were only kept there for only very small offenses. For instance, they sometimes - they had provided a few pounds of butter on the black market.
THE PRESIDENT: How do you know that Pohl gave such an order?
THE WITNESS: I did not see the order itself, no, but I do know that after we had made protests that order had been withdrawn by Himmler.
THE PRESIDENT: How do you know that?
THE WITNESS: I know that also through Obergruppenfuehrer Raute and Obertarmbannfuehrer Bender.
THE PRESIDENT: What you claim to know is what these two Obergruppenfuehrers told you?
THE WITNESS: Yes Aug-A-MJ-17-3-Hoxsie (Simha) Q( By Mr. Ponger) This morning you spoke in brief terms about the concentration camp of Dora and you said that you didn't see the camp itself.
Did you ever speak to the camp commander at any time?
A. I did have the opportunity to speak to the commander, Pister, who had personally seen the concentration camp of Dora, and who was present at the conferences whore Pohl was presiding.
Q. What did Pister tell you about Pohl's statement with regard to labor assignment there?
A. Pohl had given the order to carry out the labor assignment to in a ruthles manner, and in particular billets hygienic conditions and medical conditions were to be neglected on purpose in order to concentrate their entire pushing ahead this working project. The commander, Pister, made protese, that this would mean the immediate death of thousands and thousands of inmates. Pohl thereupon decided that in this particular case of Dora, due to decisive importance for the war, human beings' lives shouldn't count.
Q. Dr. Morgen, I would like to speak about the Defendant Vogt now. Do you know the Defendant Vogt?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. Did you have any official matters to deal with him?
A. Yes.
Q. In what connection, witness?
A. During my investigations, which played more and more into the field of corruptions, I worked together with auditors of the defendant, or then I used his auditing reports.
Q. Dr. Morgen, as far as corruptions are concerned, I would appreciate it if your testimony would be rather limited. How then, during those investigations, did you at any time hear that Vogt visited concentration-camps, V-o-g-t?
A. I know that the Defendant - Vogt was in the concentration camp of Buchenwald, that is to say in the administrative building there.
Q. What was the purpose of his going there, witness?
A. After Standartenfuehrer Koch, the commander, had been arrested namely one year prior to my appearance, he had been called by Obergruppenfuehrer Erbprinz Zu Waldeck, in order to make certain investigations and to give certain findings about their esploitation program, of Koch towards the concentration camp interest.
Q. High reference to the concentration camp inmates and also about their exploitation was it Volt's task to investigate the camp, the financial situation of the camp?
A. Vogt as a treasury auditor did not have the task to deal with matters which were outside of his field of task. However, I am of the opinion that after a long examination of those things, and also during his presence in the camp, he couldn't very well help seeing them. I am of the opinion that the Defendant Vogt in connection with Buchenwald should have seen indubitably that the commander was exploiting the inmates in a 11 shameless manners and through the economic enterprises exploited, and that he put the inmate money into his own pocket. That was not only a personal enrichment, but it was also the disadvantages which the inmates had.
Q. Dr. Morgan, did you hear that Dr. Vogt was at any time in Lublin?
THE PRESIDENT: I think we have had enough of this scandalmongering about Vogt. It is all hearsay, and it doesn't relate to the charges in the indictment at all.
MR. PONGER: My last question about Lublin concerns Action Reinhardt and Vogt.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you can connect it with the Action Reinhardt it would be pertinent.
DR. HOFFMANN (Counsel for Defendant Hoffmann): I could have answered that question, Mr. President, in the direct examination, but I only spoke about the secrecy question and the question concerning the transportation system.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course the Action Reinhardt is mentioned in the indictment. That is one of the charges. Now, this examination has dragged on much longer by both sides than is necessary. The door will close at three o'clock on any further cross examination of this witness. The Tribunal has, under the ordinance, the right to limit cross-examination. Now, you can use that time as you like -for unimportant things or important things--but the examination will close at three o'clock.
MR. PONGER: This is one of the last question I have to put to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't hear the question.
MR. PONGER: This is one of the last questions I have to ask the witness.
BY ME. PONGER:
Q. Dr. Morgen, are you familiar with the term Action Reinhardt?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you hear about the Action Reinhardt in connection with Lublin?
A. Yes.
Q. According to your opinion, do you think the defendant Vogt know of the Action Reinhardt?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you explain it to the Tribunal?
THE PRESIDENT: That is not proof: Do you think that one of the defendants know about it. He says yes. Well....go ahead; let's so how much he does know about it. See what basis there is for his conclusion, if any.
WITNESS: The place where the Action Reinhardt was wound up was in Lublin; in any case, one of the winding up places was in Lublin. It was in the hands of Sturmbannfuehrer Wipporn. A short while before I arrived there, the Defendant Vogt was at the agency of Sturmbannfuehrer Wippern, and he had audited the total balance of the Reinhardt Action.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that the basis for your statement?
WITNESS: I know that Sturmbannfuehrer Wippern knew about the matters in connection with the Reinhardt Action, and he also reported to me that he had discussed those questions with Standartenfuehrer Vogt.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, of course, Vogt himself told us this. He admits that he went to Lublin to audit the books of the Reinhardt Fund.
BY MR. PONGER:
Q. Witness, do you know anything about the fact of whether Vogt was well oriented about where those valuables came from, and that they originated from the extermination of the Jews?
A. I can't give you a statement about that.
DR. SCHMIDT (Counsel for Vogt): I object against this question.
THE PRESIDENT: He says he can't make a statement about it anyway.
MR. PONGER: I have no further questions.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY DR. SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Pohl):
Q. Witness, I only have a few questions to put to you. Due to the short time at our disposal, I would appreciate it if you would answer my question with yes or no. Did you at any time personally see an order which ordered executions, or any other measures in connection with executions, signed by the defendant Oswald Pohl?
A. No.
Q. What you stated before, therefore, is based on hearsay from third parties?
A. Yes, quite so. That is from third persons who were directly connected with those matters.
Q. You were never in the concentration camp of Dora, were you?
A. No.
Q. Your knowledge of Dora is based on things that Oberfuehrer Pister told you?
A. Yes, the commander.
Q. Do you know that the commander of the concentration camp of Sachsenhuasen, who was mentioned by you, by name was Loritz, upon the suggestion of the defendant Pohl, was dismissed by Himmler?
A. No, I didn't.
DR. SEIDL: No further questions, Your Honors.
BY DR. SCHMIDT (Counsel for Defendant Vogt):
Q. Witness, you spoke in connection with Buchenwald about the fact Vogt for quite a while has been in the administration of the camp, and that he carried out auditing there. What is that knowledge based on, witness ?
A. In part I saw to auditing reports of the defendant Vogt myself.
Q. Is there any possibility tat this auditing was not done by Vogt personally, but by one of his auditors?
A. According to the eye-witness reports, Vogt and other auditors were present -- at the time.
THE PRESIDENT: But did you see Vogt?
WITNESS: Yes, but a year later.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you see him when he was doing the auditing? Where was this, Lublin?
WITNESS: No, I didn't see him.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you see him either at Buchenwald or Lublin?
WITNESS: No, I didn't see him.
BY DR. SCHMIDT:
Q. Now,then, in connection with the case Lublin, one more question, witness. Did Wippern at any time tell you in how far he had informed Vogt about the real Reinhardt Action?
A. According to my opinion, this can be seen from the connections which existed: if silver tableware, wedding rings, gold from teeth, and money and foreign exchange--and even up to eyeglass rims-were collected and made up into lists--hundreds of thousands of these items--then I don't believe that these can be normal things.
Q. Did you see those things yourself, witness?
A. I saw the remainder of those things myself.
Q. When was it?
A. Around the end of 1943 or the beginning of 1944. It could have been towards the end. I couldn't tell you exactly.
Q. Do you know that Vogt already in June, 1943, had been to Lublin?
A. He stated before that he was there before I got there, and therefore the defendant Vogt must have seen more than I did.
Q. That is a deduction on your part, witness, isn't it?
A. Well, because in the meantime, as I was told, the removal of those things took place after he had left.
Q. And whether Vogt was at the same spot which you visited also--do you know that personally?
A. Yes, indeed, I was told that by Sturmbannfuehrer Wippern.
DR. SCHMIDT: No further questions, Your Honor.
DR. FROESCHMANN (Counsel for defendant Mummenthey): Only two questions, Your Honor.
BY DR. FORESCHMANN:
Q. Witness, when were you in Horzogenbusch?
A. In the month of November, 1943.
Q. Who was in charge of the diamond-cutting shop?
A. That, I couldn't tell you for certain.
Q. Did you speak with anyone there, witness?
A. I spoke with the administrative leader and with the diamond cutters,there, in the camp.
Q. In the camp?
A. Yes.
DR. FROESCHMANN: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: No further questions by Defense counsel?
There appear to be none. Witness will be excused. Court will recess until nine thirty next Monday morning.
(Witness excused).
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until nine thirty, Monday morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 25 August 1947, at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of Military Tribunal II, Case 4, in the matter of the United States of America, against Oswald Pohl, et al., defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 25 August 1947, 0930-1000, 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.
THE PRESIDENT: Where are we Mr. Robbins? What is the order?
MR. ROBBINS: Your Honor, very much to my surprise Oswald Pohl is listed as the witness this morning. I think that the procedure was to bring in defense witnesses for Tschentscher and Fanslau.
THE PRESIDENT: What about the rest of the Prosecution's witnesses?
MR. ROBBINS: We have no more Prosecution witnesses, Your Honor. We are through with our rebuttal, except for some document books, which are not quite ready, but I hope they will be ready today, but the processing is all held up.
DR. SEIDL: Dr. Seidl for the defendant Oswald Pohl. Your Honors, first of all I intend to call the defendant Oswald Pohl once more into the witness stand in order to ask him several question. In view of the fact that in the meantime the witness Morgen has been available for cross examination, and, since the Tribunal has made it understood clearly that it does not believe that the affidavit from the witness has any probative value, particularly, insofar as the so-called corruption cases are concerned, I have refrained from calling the defendant Oswald Pohl once more onto the witness stand. However, I admit that here we are dealing with a border question and I would be thankful if the Tribunal would make a ruling about the fact whether the three affidavits of the witness Dr. Morgen, which have been presented by both the Prosecution and the defense contain anything which has any probative value and whether they contain anything which has to be explained any further.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is only concerned in the affidavits of the witness Morgen with the allegations which are concerned with the indictment, and not with misconduct which is not related to the indictment.
When the defendant was on the stand on direct examination, he already answered the important or the relative allegations in the Morgen affidavits and there is no purpose in his going back on the stand again simply to deny it again. He has met all the allegations in these affidavits already.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Dr. von Stakelberg for the defendant Fanslau. Your Honor, I intend to call two witnesses to the witness stand today, for the purpose of breaking down the veracity of the witness Otto. One of them is the medical councillor (Medizinalrat) Dr. Steigele from the Insane Asylum at Eggelfing, and, the other one is the Attorney Freitag, or District Attorney Freitag from Augsburg. The medical councillor Dr. Steigele, as the Security Officer has informed me, has already appeared in the building. However, unfortunately, he has not arrived at my office as yet, and I am unable to locate him at the present time. However, he is bound to arrive here any second now. The District Attorney, Dr. Freitag, has notified me that he will arrive here on the noon train, and I assume that he can be in the building at half past eleven or by that time.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. von Stakelberg, what about your other witnesses. You were to have several other witnesses, I understand?
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Your Honor, the other witnesses whom I have asked for were interned witnesses. At the time, together with Mr. Robbins, I have my request in with Miss Benford to have the witnesses brought here as quickly as possible. Miss Benford assured me that the witnesses would be brought here as quickly as possible. Up to now, however, they have not arrived, as yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Robbins, I am a little fearful that some of your documents, that you are about to offer now may create the desire to offer more defense testimony.
Do you expect those to be ready today? No? Not these?
MR. ROBBINS: I think they will be ready, at least some of them today, and I hope all of them by tomorrow. I think they are probably rebuttal documents, and I design simply to rebut the defense, and I don't know how long this can go on, whether the defense is entitled to rebut the rebuttal, and we can rebut their rebuttal?
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, you will have to admit that a good deal of your rebuttal could have been properly introduced in your main case. Now, as to the witness Otto, it is only by kind imagination that we called it rebuttal.
MR. ROBBINS: They will be ready to answer Your Honor's questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Some of them today?
MR. ROBBINS: I believe so.
THE PRESIDENT: I am concerned with filling up the day.
MR. ROBBINS: Well, a great number of the defense document books that are ready.
THE PRESIDENT: If we run out of witnesses, the defense will be prepared to offer some documents?
MR. ROBBINS: Before the Doctor arrives, and while he is arriving, I should like to raise the question of the admissibility of his testimony, or of the relevancy here. I understand that the defense counsel intend to conduct an insanity hearing here in court of the witness Otto. Now, that is a very complicated and delicate question. I understand that the Doctor who is being called from Haar-Eggelfing has never treated Otto, is that right? He has?
(Discussion ensued between Mr. Robbins and defense attorney.)
MR. ROBBINS : Then I withdraw my statement. I would like to say to the Court, however, that the witness Otto has been for several days under the close and almost constant examination of the Prison Psychiatrist, and he is now in the general hospital in Nurnberg under the observation of two distinguished Psychiatrists.
They have the complete files from Haar-Eggelfing, and, they are making a very thorough examination as to his purported insanity. The Prison Psychiatrist, I understand, is an officer of the Court, and he will be prepared, I believe, tomorrow to give a complete report to the Tribunal on the witness' state of mind.
THE TRIBUNAL: Herr von Stakelberg, I have in mind that the defendants, Fanslau and Tschentscher will undoubtedly take the stand on their own behalf, again. That can be done today. In fact, it can be done immediately, if agreeable.
The Tribunal itself wishes to recall the defendant Oswald Pohl to answer a number of questions. We will do that first.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Dr. Stakelberg, for the defendant Fanslau. Your Honor, the witness, Dr. Steigele has just now arrived. However, I must refute one statement which I have made just now. Dr. Steigele actually did not himself treat and observe the witness Otto. The Doctor who treated him at the time has left the Institution, and he is now engaged in private practice. Dr. Steigele only knows the general case history.
(Discussion between Mr. Robbins and Dr. Stakelberg ensued off the record).
MR. ROBBINS: Apparently, the Doctor whom the defense proposes to call knows nothing about the witness Otto, except what he has seen in the files, and he has not treated nor observed the witness Otto. Now all these files are presently in the hands of the Prison Psychiatrist, at his request, and it seems to me that the best evidence would be to let the Prison Psychiatrist examine the files, and examine Otto and make his report. I think the testimony of this Doctor would be of very little value, since he does not know the case himself. This is a very complicated issue.
THE TRIBUNAL: Well, could he not testify as an expert from the records, the official records of the hospital without having examined the patient in person?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, I think he probably could. However, it is going to be repetitious, I take it, of what the Prison Psychiatrist will testify to.
THE TRIBUNAL: If two Psychiatrists agree, I shall be very much surprised, Now I see no objection to this Doctor testifying to a professional conclusion from official hospital records. I think that is competent evidence within the field of opinion proof. The Court will take into consideration the fact that he has not treated nor examined the patient in determining the weight of the testimony. All right, take the defendant Oswald Pohl to the witness stand, Mr. Marshal.
DR. PRIBILLA: Dr. Pribilla for the defendant Tschentscher. Your Honor, within the last week my physical condition was very bad, and Dr. Krauss represented me here. So far as the preparation of rebuttal evidence of Tschentscher is concerned, we have not completed it as yet. I had difficulty in locating the witnesses, and I would prefer if I could call my witnesses and Tschentscher to the witness stand only after Dr. von Stakelberg has presented his evidence on behalf of the defendant Fanslau.
THE TRIBUNAL: There is no objection to that, Dr. Pribilla, provided there is no delay between witnesses. If you will be ready to go ahead as soon as Dr. von Stakelberg has finished. That will be all right.
The defendant Oswald Pohl is recalled as a witness by the Tribunal. OSWALD POHL, a defendant, recalled to the stand, and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: I would like to remind you that you are still under oath.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q Now will you please answer my questions directly and briefly, and please do not say, "As I testified on direct examination." I know what you testified to, but just answer these particular questions right to the point, if you please?
A Yes.
Q Who appointed the concentration camp commanders?
A Himmler.
Q Who appointed the concentration camp Administrative Officers?
A I did.
Q Who nominated, or suggested the names of the concentration camp commanders to Himmler?
A The Inspector of the concentration camp. In one case I did.
Q When you were in Auschwitz did you see the extermination chambers, or the crematorium?
A I saw them from a distance.
Q How close were you?
A Several hundred meters. That was on the way to the agriculture plant. I don't know how close this way passed by these installations.
Q Were you ever standing within twenty-five meters of the crematorium?
A No.
Q How long were you in the concentration camp at Auschwitz on this visit?
A Generally arrived there in the morning on an early train from Berlin, and, then I stayed there throughout the day, and I either left again in the evening, or I left on the following morning.
Q You were there about a day?
A Yes.
Q Who appointed Gluecks?
A Himmler did.
Q. Did you nominate him, or suggest him?
A He was there already when I came to this organization in 1942. So far as I know Gluecks had already been with the organization since 1937, or '38.
Q I understand he was there before WVHA?
A Yes.
Q. Well, did you suggest his appointment in the first place back in 1934, or '36, whenever it was?
A No, I had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Q Who appointed Liebehenschel?
A He was also there when I came to this organization in 1942.
Q Did you have anything to do with his selection?
A No.
Q Who appointed Pook?
A I have seen Pook here for the first time. I don't know how he came to that organization. Since he was a dentist apparently this was done by order of the Reich Physician-SS, who assigned the medical personnel in its entirety.
Q You had nothing to do with his selection by the Medical Office?
A No.
A How Sommer came to Office Group D I don't know. I can't recall that this matter passed through my hands. Apparently this was some sort of reassignment, but I don't know how it was carried out.
Q Did you ask for his reassignment to WVHA?
A I personally did not.
Q Did you appoint or dismiss the AMT chiefs?
A Yes.
Q So that you could either have removed or transferred them as you thought best?
A Yes.
Q Did you hire or dismiss the company managers in the DWB industries?
A Yes.
Q Were the W industries SS industries?
A No.
Q Did you have Rudolf Hoess transferred in December 1943, from Auschwitz. I think, to Chief of AMT D_I?
A Yes.
Q When you asked to have him transferred to your department you knew that he had been for a long timecamp commander at Auschwitz?
A Yes.
Q Did you know anything more about him?
A I knew at the time that he was assigned to carry out the extermination program.
Q And in spite of that you wanted him to work for you?
A His reassignment took place by order of Himmler. I only was active in carrying it out. After all he remained within the Inspectorate, or Office Group D.
Q Did you ask for his transfer?
A Himmler arranged it and Himmler ordered it.
Q Well, did he order it at your request?
A. We discussed the matter.
Q And you both agreed on the transfer of Hoess to AMT D_I?
A Yes.
Q In the organization chart which you signed, Exhibit 36, you refer to Hohberg as Chief of Staff W.
A I can't understand the question, your Honor.
Q You recall the organization chart which you prepared and signed?
A Yes.
Q At the bottom of it you designate Hohberg as Chief of Staff W?
A Yes.
Q Was he Chief of Staff W?
A I cannot answer this question with yes or no.
Q You don't have to. Answer it in your own way.
A I cannot recall that I appointed Hohberg to be Chief of Staff W.
Q Do you not recall signing an order calling him Chief of Staff W?
A That is possible.
Q Did Hohberg ask you to revoke that order, to cancel it?
A I can't recall that.
Q Did you ever cancel it?
A I can't recall it, your Honor.
Q Do you recall Hohberg protesting that he couldn't keep his status as an independent auditor and at the same time be Chief of Staff W?
A I can recall that at the time, after the denunciation of an unknown person to the professional chamber to which Hohberg belonged-
Q That is the Accountants' Institute, wasn't it?
A Yes, and that I wrote to this institute that Hohberg was not working as an auditor in the WVHA, I wrote this letter that he was an auditor in the WVHA, at the request of Hohberg because he only wanted to have the position of an auditor.
Q So that in effect you established him as an independent auditor rather than as the Chief of Staff W?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Well, did Hohberg continue to act as Chief of Staff W even after you had written this letter?
A Well, this question is again connected with the other question, what was the position of this Chief of Staff W at all. I have never recognized such a position as existing.
Q Will, anyway, did Hohberg continue to perform the same duties before you wrote the letter and after you wrote the letter?
A His activity extended to all duties which had to be assigned to an independent auditor, and he also would generally consult me in general economic questions, as it was specified in his contract.
Q Well, whatever title you gave him, his duties were the same all the time he was with you?
A I haven't quite understood the translation.
(The question was again translated by the interpreter.)
A Yes.
Q You said that you knew that Rudolf Hoess was in charge of the extermination program at Auschwitz?
A Yes.
Q Did you yourself see Jews being loaded into lorries or trucks in Berlin for the purpose of resettlement?
A No.
Q Did you observe the crowds in the street that collected upon the removal of Jews?
A My agency was located at Lichterfelde. That was rather far outside of Berlin, and there I did not make any observations of that kind. Your Honor, are you now referring to 1938, or are you referring to the entire time?
Q The entire time where the program was to remove the Jews from Germany and resettle them.
A No, I never saw anything of the sort.
Q Did you appoint Hohberg to the Board of Directors of the Eastern German Furniture Company?
A There was no such board of directors. The Board of Directors of the East German Furniture Company? No such thing existed.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Construction Company
THE PRESIDENT: No it is a furniture company.
Q (By the President) Well, all right then, I will ask you about the East German Construction Company, if you insist.
A Yes, the title is not quite correct, your Honor. I still don't know what you are referring to. Are you referring to the Osti?
Q No, no.
A Then there was only the Eastern German Construction Material Company, G.m.b.H.
Q That is right.
A The Eastern German Construction Material Company, G.m.b.H.
Q Did you appoint Hohberg to the Board of Directors of that company?
A Yes.
Q Did you revoke his appointment, that is remove him when he asked you to?
A Yes.
Q Were you a director of the Cooperative Home Building Society in 1938 and '39?
A Yes, I believe I was a partner in the company. However, I can't tell you exactly, your Honor.
Q Did that company or society use concentration-camp labor?
A I don't think so.
Q Was this a W industry?
A Yes. It was not an SS industry, but it was an enterprise which was to build homes for the military and civilian members of the WVHA. It was also an agency of the Reich so to say which was under my supervision.