Q Are you sure whether prison labor, inmates, were used in that industry?
A I can't tell you that.
Q I refer you to Document No. NO-2153, Exhibit 307. Do you have your documents here?
A I don't have any documents here.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any German document book here with Exhibit 307 in it?
MR. ROBBINS: I think there are some in court.
Q (By the President) Exhibit 307, Document NO-2153.
A I have found it, yes.
Q Do you see the two paragraphs marked 1 and 2?
A Yes.
Q And does your name appear at the bottom of the paper together with Mueckel and Schaefer?
A Yes.
Q Will you read those two paragraphs to yourself, please, and see whether they refer to the use of inmate labor?
A Yes, that is correct. I can recall it now. This was the construction of settlement buildings at Dachau, and here inmates of the concentration camp Dachau were used.
Q What buildings were they building, what were they erecting?
A They were erecting apartment houses.
Q For the use of the garrison, the officers at Dachau?
A Yes, for soldiers and civilian employees of the garrison.
Q It was a housing program?
A Correct, your Honor.
Q And the work was done by the inmates of the concentration camp?
A Yes.
Q Was that the large row of two-story houses on the left as you go into Dachau?
A When you go into Dachau, these buildings are on the right side. The large number of buildings on the left side had already been erected before that.
Q These are on the right side?
A These on the right. I There were approximately 10 houses altogether.
Q After you took command of WVHA in 1942 did you approve, or at least keep the Amtschefs that were in the organization before that?
A These were my former collaborators. The change in designations in the WVHA did not carry with it any direct changes in the positions held by various personnel. There was just a change in the designations. My collaborators remained the same.
Q A change in name?
A The firm just changed its name.
Q Did you issue an order forbidding the employment of clergymen in concentration camps on clerical work, that is book work?
A I haven't quite understood your question, your Honor.
Q Did you issue an order which stated that ministers, clergymen, should not be employed in clerical work, that is paper work, in concentration camps?
A I believe so, yes.
Q Why?
A In this question Himmler interferred to a considerable extent. As far as I can recall it was to be prevented because we were dealing with intellectuals here, but thats the secrecy regulations of the matters which passed through these offices would be endangered. This order came from Himmler that they were only to be used in the herbs garden. They were to be used as gardeners.
Q Well, there were other intellectuals who were not ministers, were there not?
A Yes, but that was just one big uniform group here.
Q What do you mean by an intellectual, a man who can read and write?
A No, a person who by virtue of his professional training and his mental capacity is especially capable.
Q Capable of what, thinking for himself?
A No, but he can easily recognize whatever passes through his hands, and he can evaluate and use these matters.
Q And you didn't want any smart men around, any intelligent men around, for fear they would find out what was going on?
A In the offices, in the enterprises, we had s-called clerks. These were simple people, for this work no special qualifications were needed. I did not initiate this matter at all anyway.
Q You implemented it; you carried the order on from Himmler, if that is where it came from.
A Yes. I did that.
Q Were prisoners of war used as laborers in armament plants?
A Not with my knowledge.
Q Will you turn to Document NO-1215, Exhibit 328 - 1215?
A Yes, I have found it.
Q This is a letter from Krammler to you, is it not?
A Yes.
Q Will you look at the paragraph No. 2?
A Yes, I have read it.
Q Does that say that concentration-camp inmates were employed in armament industries?
A Yes.
Q Well, I asked you whether inmates were used in the armament industries, and you said no.
A You asked me before whether prisoners of war were used, your Honor.
Q You are right. There were prisoners of war in the concentration camps?
A Yes, I only heard that here later on.
Q You didn't know that the Russian and Polish prisoners of war were kept in concentration camps?
A In the material which was available to me only inmates were mentioned.
Q And you never knew that that included prisoners of war?
A I can't recall today that I realized that clearly at the time.
Q Well, that is not a very positive answer. Can you say whether or not you knew that prisoners of war from the east were kept in concentration camps?
A I can't answer that question with yes or no, your Honor, because I can't recall the matter precisely.
Q Who was the SS-Economic Administrator?
A Well, I don't quite understand your title. The Chief of the Administration of the SS, that was I. Are you referring to the title?
Q I don't understand it either. I find that title in the translation, and I didn't know whom it referred to.
MR. ROBBINS: SS-Wirtschafter.
A The term is SS-Wirtschafter, the SS-Economic Expert. Who was that? There were several of them. There were several economic experts in the occupied territories. As far as I can recall at the end there were three. There was an SS-Economic Expert Eastland, as SS--Eccnomic Expert in the Government General, and in the end of the SS-Economic Expert in Hungary, I cannot recall any additional ones.
Q (By the President) Well, in September, 1942, Hohberg's title was changed to Economic Inspector, was it not?
A That is something quite different.
Q Oh, yes, I know.
A That has nothing to do with the SS economic experts.
Q That is right.
A That was my attempt that through an inspector I would have a man who would carry out the trips which I was unable to carry out myself so that I would be informed about whatever happened in the enterprises. But Hohberg... ....
Q And be informed promptly?
A Yes, quite right.
Q I know the Economic Inspector has nothing to do with the Economic Administrator.
A No.
A. Now, you have Book 12 in your hand?
A. Yes.
Q. Look at Exhibit 340, three-four-zero and three-four-one.
A. Yes, I found it.
A. Did you receive this letter from Mueller, Exhibit 340?
A. Yes.
A. What about three-four-one? Which is a letter from Himmler, Document NO-2031.
A. Yes.
Q. The question is, did you receive that?
A. I assume that, Your Honor.
A. Well, I assume that if Himmler wrote a letter to you that your got it.
A. Exactly.
Q. Now, the next document, NO-1523, from Himmler to you-
A. Will you give me the document number once more, please.
A. One-five-two-three.
A. Yes.
A. You did receive that?
A. No; this is a letter of the Office Group D, Gluecks, to the Camp Commanders.
Q. No; you have the wrong document then.
A. One-five-two-three....
A. Well, there are several documents. One-five-two-three is a letter of 31 December, 1942, from Himmler to you.
A. Yes, I have it.
A. Did you receive that letter?
A. Yes, I must assume that I did receive the letter.
A. Well, I must assume that any letter that you got from Himmler, you read them; you didn't throw them in the waste basket.
A. Your Honor, in my activity in my office I must have received millions of letters, and it is quite impossible for a human being to state here that I did receive this letter.
Q. Oh, I am just talking about letters from Himmler///
A. Well, in general I would read all letters which came from Himmler. However, it is quite possible that I did not read one or the other letter. From the date here I could say exactly that during that time I was on leave for nine or ten days because early in December I married, and in January I was visiting a friend whom I also stayed with, and that letter comes from that time. However, that does not matter. In general, of course, if I am to say under oath that I received a certain letter, then of course it is very difficult for me, if it is not a letter which has a specific intent. I must say here that I must assume that I did receive the letter at the time.
Q. All right, that is satisfactory. Was OSTI a DWB enterprise?
A. I didn't understand your question, Your Honor. (Question repeated to witness) The OSTI also was an enterprise of the Reich.
Q. Well, was it a DWB enterprise?
A. Under my supervision, yes.
Q. Do you recall when Mummenthey reported to you the abuses that he had observed in the transportation of prisoners, carrying stones around in a circle, and other cruelties?
A. Mummenthey very frequently has reported to me about his observations. Whether, in this specific case, he saw me, I don't know, but I assume so.
Q. Well, do you remember Mummenthey talking to you about the cruelties to prisoners, and protesting about it?
A. Yes, I can recall that.
Q. What did you do about it?
A. I would take the necessary steps in every case. I investigated the matter and then I took the necessary steps for those things would be discontinued.
Q. Well, did you call on Gluecks for a report, or Eicke?
A. In general, I would discuss the matter with Gluecks, and in cases which seemed to be specifically unusual to me I would also make some surprise checks. However, since I had so much work to do I was only able to do that in a few exceptional cases.
A. When you made the surprise checks what did you find?
A. I cannot recall any individual cases any more today.
Q. In general, did you find that prisoners were being abused?
A. Yes when I came there, of course, I was unable to make any observations because no matter how I camouflaged myself, whenever I arrived at the place then everybody in the place knew that I was before the gates, and that was sufficient to remove all traces of misdeeds before I got there. It was extremely difficult for me to personally catch the culprits. I tried it several times, but in general I did not succeed in finding them.
Q. Oh, I dare say that is true; that happens all over the world-in wartime and out of wartime. What did Gluecks and Eicke tell you when you asked them about abuse of prisoners?
A. Without being able to recall any specific cases, in general. I would discuss the matters with him and then I would tell him what action he was to take; he was to carry out an investigation and a punishment of the guilty persons, and, in special cases, the perpetrators of the deeds were to be transferred, and whatever other action could be taken.
Q. And that was done on your order to Gluecks or Eicke?
A. Not to Eicke. Eicke was not there any more. This-
Q. Well, I mean, Eicke was there first. He was there before?
A. No, Eicke was completely independent--he even had a higher rank than I.
A. All right.
A. I never had anything to do with Eicke because when, in 1942, I joined this organization, then Eicke had already been away from that organization for two years.
Q. I understand that--well, all right. Let us say Gluecks and Liebehenschel?
A. Only Gluecks.
A. All right. You gave orders to Gluecks to find out whether there had been abuses of prisoners, and to take stops to punish anyone who was guilty?
A. Yes, the incidents which were reported to me were discussed by me with Gluecks, and then I ordered what steps he was to take.
A. So, in this respect, Gluecks was subject to your orders? He took orders from you?
A. Yes; naturally.
A. Well, Gluecks was the head of Amtsgruppe D?
A. By order or Himmler, he was subordinated to me, with his staff.
A. Well, hasn't it been your contention all along that you had little or no control over Antsgruppe D because they got their orders direct from Himmler?
A. No, I didn't claim that in that form. At the time I stated that Office Group D was subordinated in a dual sense; it received its orders from me with regard to the labor allocation, and it also received its orders from Himmler, and it would also received its orders from the RSHA.
A. Well, Amtsgruppe D was the old Concentration Camp Inspectorate just transferred to the WVHA?
A. That is quite correct. Until 1942 it was an independent agency which every few years changed its subordination.
First of all, it was completely independent under Eicko; then it was transferred to the Operational Main Office, and finally, in 1942, it was transferred to us. It was a uniform organization.
Q. What do you mean by that: a uniform organization?
A. Its incorporation into any Main Office was as simple as a transfer.
It was actually not a part of the other Main Offices.
Q. Oh-
A. For example, from my WVHA, which also had consisted of Office Groups A, B, and C, I could hardly have removed one of them Without changing the entire organization. However, that was not the case with Office Group D.
Q. Oh. Did you decide which labor camps should be converted into concentration camps?
A. What labor camps were to be converted into concentration camps?
Q. Was it your job to determine or docide when a labor camp should become a concentration camp?
A. As far as I can recall, that didn't happen at all. It never happened that a labor camp was converted into a concentration camp. I can't recall any such instance.
Q. What about Cracow-Placzow?
A. Yes, but I believe that this was a concentration camp from the very beginning. This was established by the Higher SS & Police Leader at Cracow, and it is possible that in the beginning he called it a labor camp; but I cannot recall any instances where labor camps were converted into concentration camps. There may have been one or another case as in the case of Cracow-Placzow.
Q. What about Lublin?
A. That was a concentration camp from the very beginning, Your Honor. It was a concentration camp from the very beginning.
A. Weren't some labor camps added to it?
A. Yes; Globocnik, in his area, and beyond that, had established a number of labor camps, and the WVHA, in January, 1944, took over these camps. A number of labor camps belonged to the concentration camp at Lublin.
Q. Do you have Document Book 17?
A. Yes.
Q. Document NO-1036; this is a report from Opperbeck, isn't it?
A. No, it is not from Opperbeck. It is a file note by Baier. Are you referring to the file note of the 19th of January, 1944, Your Honor?
Q. Thirteen January,
A. Thirteen, yes; the 13th.
Q. Is that not signed by Opperbeck?
A. There is no signature below it here. I don't know who signed it.
Q. Let me see the book. May I see your book a minute? Well, the English copy shows that Opperbeck signed it.
A. Yes.
Q. Sturmbannfuehrer?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, I have made some marks on your copy--some check marks; first page.
A. Yes, first page.
Q. Now, do those numbers refer to labor camps which are to be converted into concentration camps?
A. The question is not complete in this form, as far as the translation goes anyway.
Q. Well, start at the first, at the beginning of the document; "By agreement between Hauptamtschef SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl--"
A. Yes.
Q. Etcetera ....
A. Yes.
Q. Does the letter say anything about converting labor camps into concentration camps?
A. Yes.
Q. How many of them?
A. Well, I only know about the camps Lublin and Cracow-Placzow. I can't recall that in Lemberg there was also a concentration camp.
Q. Lemberg is the same as Lwow?
A. I think so.
Q. And Radom? What is that?
A. That wasn't a concentration camp either, at Radom.
Q. No; but this letter states that it is planned to make it a concentration camp, does it not?
A. Yes, but these are Forced-Labor camps or labor camps, as it is stated here. These were labor camps which were subordinated to the locally competent Higher SS-&-Police Leader at Cracow. From these Forced-Labor camps the camps at Cracow-Placzow and at Lublin were later on placed under the supervision of the WVHA as concentration camps.
Q. Now, tell me the difference, if you please, between a ForcedLabor camp and a concentration camp?
A. A concentration camp is a main camp which, by virtue of its special organization, equipment is able to accept inmates, to administer them, and to distribute them to branch camps. However, the labor camps are unable to do that. A labor camp only consists of billets, and of all the facilities which are necessary in order to assign the inmates which have been sent from the concentration camps for work.
Q Is it true that the Forced-Labor camps were under the control of the Gestapo or the Security Police?
A I am not informed about the fact of just what camps the Gestapo and the Security Police had. The designation "Forced Labor Camps" in my field of competence was never used either. We only knew of labor camps and concentration camps.
Q Well, Opporbeck apparently calls them Forced Labor camps....
A Yes, that certainly was the designation which was used by tho police authorities because these camps, without any doubt, were established by police authorities.
Q That is right; and when they were converted into concentration camps they came under your authority?
A Yes.
Q So this was a plan to take five labor camps from the police and place them under your department as concentration camps?
A That was a plan.
Q That was the plan, yes, and it was done in part.
A In part, yes; only at Lublin and Cracow-Placzow.
Q Did you know Hans Frank, the Governor General of Poland?
A I only know him by his appearance and I knew him by virtue of his position. However, I did not make his personal acquaintance. I did not have any personal contact with him.
Q Were the vouchers and the documents involved in Vogt's audit of the Reinhardt Fund destroyed?
A I can't give you an information about that, Your Honor; I don't know. In any case, they were not destroyed at the time. Whether, in the execution of a general order, they were burned or were destroyed at the time of surrender, I don't know.
Q. Do you have Volume XIX?
A. Yes.
Q. Number N0-064. It is a letter of 5 January 1944 from Globocnik to Himmler.
A. The letter of Globocnik to Himmler of the 5th of January, 1944?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, I found it, Your Honor.
Q. Well, the statement in the second half of the letter, it's about four paragraphs from the end with regard to the complete final accounts of Operation Reinhardt. Do you find that?
A. With regard to the final accounting of Reinhardt, are you referring to this, Your Honor.
Q. No, no. Bring the document book. Do you see the paragraph that I have marked? Will you read it, please, to yourself?
A. Yes, that is a recommendation of Globocnik to Himmler. However, at the time on my own initiative I never gave any order that these documents and vouchers were to be destroyed.
Q. No. What does to say in the paper that you just read, the part that I marked?
A. "In the final accounts of the Action Reinhardt the one factor has to be considered that the respective vouchers will have to be destroyed as soon as possible after the vouchers of all the other work in this matter have already been destroyed." That is what Globocnik writes to Himmler. I have this letter.....
Q. And what is the date of that?
A. Tnis letter dates from the 5th of January, 1944.
Q. Now in the same book, will you find Document NO069, Exhibit 488. 069, Exhibit 488?
A. Yes, this is the report about the administration of the execution of the Action Reinhardt.
Q. That's right. Now will you go down to II?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, just ahead of that, just before that, "on the basis of an agreement with the Reich Finance Ministry," go ahead, and read the rest of that paragraph.
A. "By virtur" -- Yes, I read it.
Q. Did you ever see this document before, before you came to court, I mean?
A. Yes, I certainly must have seen it at the time, in January, 1944, I assume.
Q. Yes, I assume so. When you read that all of the documents about the Reinhardt Fund were to be destroyed, in accordance with secrecy regulations?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, then you knew at that time that there was something shameful about the Reinhardt Fund that had to be concealed by destroying the papers?
A. Yes, these were vouchers which were in the possession of Globocnik and consequently they were not with the WVHA.
Q. I know that. This report told you that there was something about the Reinhardt Fund which was wrong and had to be kept hidden and secret, did it not?
A. These files and vouchers which were to be destroyed here, I myself never saw them, and, consequently, I could not imagine just what was contained in those files. What they were destroyed was nothing unusual.
Q. When you got this report, when you saw this report
A. Yes.
Q. And when you read that all the papers about the Reinhardt Fund had to be destroyed for the sake of secrecy, you knew that the Reinhardt Fund was something that was wrong, did you not?
A. Of course, I was able to realize that in the course of the completion of the Action.
Q. Then you knew the Reinhardt Fund was a shameful thing, even without this report?
A. I know that today, yes.
Q. You knew it then, didn't you? You knew it then, didn't you?
A. I have stated already that in the course of the completion, it gradually came to my knowledge.
Q. Well, it wasn't a surprise to you when you came in to this court room then?
A. No, not any more then. However, Your Honor, in the military service and in the state service, it frequently happened that files or written documents which did not contain anything criminal at all had to be destroyed as soon as they had been received. It happened quite often that it was stated that these documents are to be destroyed upon receipt. That was nothing unusual in this case. That happened quite often.
Q. But the Reinhardt Fund didn't concern any military secret did it? It had nothing to do with any military movements?
A. I don't know. To claim that today, that would be ridiculous.
Q. No, it wasn't for the purpose of guarding military information that these papers were to be destroyed.
A. I know it today, that it did not deal with these matters. I don't know the material individually and, of course, I know today just why they had to be destroyed.
Q. I want to refer to your affidavit of the 3d of April, 1947.
I don't know whether you have a copy of it or not. It is Document NO-2736.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have it, Dr. Seidl, in German?
DR. SEIDL: Your Honor, unfortunately, I do hot have a copy available.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: In Book XXII, Mr. Robbins.
MR. ROBBINS: I don't have it here either. I can get it.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, perhaps, we can do it the hard way.
Q. Paragraph 6, "The camp commanders were nominated by the SS Personnel Office on my recommendation and appointed by me."
A. By my recommendation, through the Personnel Main Office, by Himmler. All the officer personnel was recommended to Himmler through the Chief of the Personnel Main Office. The names were just submitted to Himmler and then he made his decision. That was the Channel used here.
Q. You didn't make the appointment yourself?
A. No, I was not able to do that.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take a recess now.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again is session.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has no further question of this witness.
DR. SEIDL: If the Tribunal please, I have only a very few questions to the witness connected with the interrogation of the witness by the Tribunal.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. SEIDL:
Q Witness, you testified that the appointment of the camp commandants was up to Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler but that you appointed the administrative officers. Did you refer there to the whole time or only to the period after 3rd March 1942?
AAs far as the commandants were concerned, I referred to the period of time after March 1942, whereas the administrative leaders were always appointed for all administrative agencies of the SS by the personnel office of the WVHA.
DR. SEIDL: May it please the Tribunal, in the boxes which were available in this building an order was found issued by Himmler on 3rd March 1942 and which is connected with the incorporation of concentration camps to the WVHA. The order was dated 3rd March 1942; and the defendant Pohl has issued an executive order connected therewith. I should like to show a copy of this order to the witness and ask him whether he himself signed it. The order will be contained in the document books which I shall submit to the Court later on.
A Yes, this is my signature.
Q The final question: You were asked about the change of labor camps into concentration camps. Did you by labor camps mean such camps which accommodated inmates on the basis of a police order, or were these labor camps administered by the German Labor Front?
A We only experienced one such change, this occurred in the Government General. These labor camps were, of course, not under the German Labor Front. They must have been establishments of the local police administration.
Q DR. SEIDL: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other question by defense counsel?
BY DR. GAWLIK (for the defendants Bobermin and Volk):
Q Witness, you were asked whether the Osti was a DWB enterprise. I believe your answer was not entirely clear. What were the relations between Osti and DWB? Who owned the capital? Was it DWB?
A I said quite clearly that these were Roich enterprises. That was my answer, wasn't it? I did not say that they were owned by the DWB.
Q The defendant Dr. Bobermin on cross examination was further submitted a suggestion of promotion which stressed the special merits acquired by Dr. Bobermin in armament matters connected with the concentration camps. Is that motivation a correct one? Particularly, did Dr. Bobermin have any special tasks in that respect?
THE PRESIDENT: Now, this isn't a matter that was brought out by the Court's questioning at all.
DR. GAWLIK: May I ask then to make the witness my own witness.
THE PRESIDENT: No, not now; not at all. He was called on behalf of the Tribunal. You had a chance to make him your own witness long ago; and I think you've already covered the matter that you just questioned him about.