As Fanslau's Exhibit No. 2 I have to offer an affidavit which contains statements of twelve men of the Waffen-SS, and their participation in the training course of the Waffen-SS. Important here is the statement that the topics of these training courses concerned payment, regulations about pay and expenses, traveling expenses, food services, clothing services, accommodation service, exchequer and accounting, social welfare and legal training, and that the concentration camp service was not part of the school. These courses, as I said before, were similar to those given by the Army administration, as far as the defendant Fanslau was concerned. It seems to me to be important that at the end of the training courses he gave talks and that here he told newly appointed officers that when they were promoted, for instance, they had not increased privileges, but increased duties, after they were commissioned. That when in active service they should look after the welfare of the simple men in the trenches, and as assistant of the commanding officers they should take care of the interest of the troops. In the end he exerted the participants with the result the courses had in assiduity, honorableness, justice, self-control, and chivalrousness, and to set themselves up as an example.
As Fanslau's Exhibit No. 3 I wish to submit an affidavit by Wilhelm Karius, which more or less confirms the explanation set forth just now, and gives more detail about these things.
Fanslau's Exhibit No. 4 will be an affidavit by Reinhold GerkeReinecke, who also says the same thing about these training courses.
Defendant Fanslau's Exhibit No. 5 will be an affidavit by Dr. Gerhard Hoffmann, who took part in the 21st military training course of the Leader School, and made statements about that course.
The next document will be Exhibit No. 6, which is an affidavit by Wilhelm Karius concerning a lecture at Berlin for a training course for administrative officers. Karius confirms therein that within a training course of administrative officials he was given an order by the Military Academy at Koenigsaal to speak about the organization of the troop administration of the Waffen SS. He worked on that lecture and the affidavit makes statements about it.
The next document will be Exhibit Fanslau No. 7. This is an affidavit by Hermann Pister, and it amounts to a correction of the affidavit submitted by the Prosecution of 3 March 1947. In the statement of 3 March 1947 Pister had made a few remarks about his meetings with the Defendant Fanslau which were incorrect. These remarks are corrected here. He did not meet Fanslau in 1936 but in October 1938 on the special train, Heinrich not as he said before, as the man in charge of the food services, but as the commanding officer. It says first the Defendant Fanslau did not take part in the meeting of commandants, which Pister mentions, but he has probably confused that meeting with a later meeting at a dinner where no official matters were discussed. And finally the Defendant Fanslau, when the Weimar-Buchenwald Railway was opened, he did not appear as Pohl's representative. Kammler was the man who deputized for Pohl on that occasion.
As my next document, which will be Fanslau Exhibit No. 8, I wish to offer an affidavit by Fanslau's brother. That statement shows that the brother of the Defendant Fanslau, before the defendant became a prisoner of war, talked with him about the atrocities which were then becoming known. The defendant Fanslau on that occasion spoke about these publications with the utmost surprise and believed at the time that they could only be enemy propaganda or something of the sort. To prove the fact that Fanslau did not feel himself to be incriminated by these publications, it is confirmed here that defendant Fanslau after these conversations volunteered to become a prisoner of war, because as he said, he felt himself free of all guilt.
The next document will be Fanslau Exhibit No. 9, and this is a supplementary affidavit by Herbert Fanslau, the brother. This shows the friendly relations between defendant Fanslau and Martin Levy, a member of the Jewish race. That friendship continued to go on even after the new racial laws had been promulgated, and it would have been necessary for the Defendant Fanslau to take up an attitude in accordance with these racial theories if he would ever have been convinced of the positive value of the racial theories.
My next document, Fanslau Exhibit No. 10, will be an affidavit by Elsa Pleil. Elsa Pleil was a Jehovah's witness and still is, and for that reason was arrested by the Gestapo at Karlsbad the course of their operations and committed to Ravensbrueck concentration camp. From there she was, at the beginning of 1944, transferred by assistance of the Labor Exchange and told to work in the household of defendant Fanslau. Fraulein Pleil is therefore in a position to make statements from her close personal knowledge of the defendant and his home life, and she confirms that Herr Fanslau was a kind man, that he was tolerant in every sense of the word, and that he did not raise any difficulties when she wanted to do her special studies as a Jehovah's witness, and that in particularly he made every effort to be a good family man. Fraulein Pleil confirms that she regarded it as a special mercy of fate to be sent to Fanslau's home after her difficult time in the concentration camp.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Where is this affiant now, Dr. Von Stakelberg?
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Fraulein Pleil was in Furth sometime ago. I don't know where she is at the present moment, but she gave this statement to me here in the court. I am inclined to assume that she still is in Furth. Furth is only half an hour's distance from here.
My next document will be Fanslau Exhibit 11, and it will be an affidavit by Frau Lutz. Frau Lutz is the sister-in-law of the defendant Fanslau and has been mentioned by the defendant himself on direct examination.
Frau Lutz is of Jewish descent, and she confirms in summation how kind and tolerant Fanslau was towards her. He was her husband's best man at their wedding in 1935, and that also he assisted Frau Lutz when her father-in-law, Alban Lutz, died. He achieved on that occasion that the mother-in-law of Frau Lutz did not have to sell her chemist shop immediately, and therefore did not lose her claim, and finally that defendant Fanslau, as he has said himself on direct examination, did everything for Lutz, the husband, when he was arrested, and that with great courage he opposed any intentions of Frau Lutz to have a divorce.
The affidavits so far are concerned with Fanslau's activities in connection with personal matters. Now we have a number of document of a more general nature and of legal nature. The next document will he Fanslau Exhibit No. 12. That is the well known secrecy order, which should he adequately known to the Court.
Defense Exhibit Fanslau No. 13 will be an extract from the Reich Penal Code to which I shall when I shall comment on the question of nulla poena sine lege. As Defense Fanslau Exhibit No. 14 there is a statement on essential human rights, and here I should like to draw attention particularly to article IX concerning retroactive laws. It reads:
"No one shall be convicted of crime except for violation of a law in effect at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offense nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that applicable at the time of the commission of the offense."
I should also like to have reference here to the commentary attached to it, which will be on page 5 of the German book, where it is said that regulations of that sort are part of the constitutions of thirty nations.
The next document, which is Exhibit No. 15, I shall submit an extract from an expert opinion given by the International Court in The Hague of 1935 which deals with the question of nullum crimen sine lege.
May I have special reference here to the fundamental remark in the last but one paragraph before the actual opinion begins. There it says that the problem of suppressing a crime can be tackled from two different points of view, one from the point of view of the individual and from the point of view of the community. In the first case the aim is to protect the individual from the state. That aim is expressed in the principle of nullum crimen sine lege. The second point of view, however, has the aim of protecting the community against the criminal. That rests of the principle of nullum crimen sine poena. The regulation of 29 August 1935 rests on the latter conception, the Danzig Constitution on the other hand, on the former, because the Constitution is taken up also, apart from the thirty constitutions I have already mentioned, by the German Constitution of the 11 August 1919, and as my next document, which will be Fanslau Exhibit No. 16, I should like to submit an extract from that Constitution, namely Article XVI, which reads: "A deed can be punished only if the punishment was provided by law before the deed was committed." A similar regulation is contained in the Constitution of the Free State of Bavaria of 1946.
As Defense Fanslau Exhibit No. 17, I should like to submit the Article 104 which reads: "A deed can only be punished if the degree of punishment has been laid down by law before the act was committed."
The same principle can be found in the law of Military Government for Germany No. 1, Article IV, Paragraph 7. As Defense Exhibit No. 18 I wish to submit an extract from that law, and would like to draw attention to first the first phase of paragraph 7. "Accusation can only be raised and sentence be pronounced and punishment inflicted if and when a law is in force, when the act was committed definitely declares that act to be an offense."
Now, the next document which will be Fanslau Exhibit No. 19, is an extract from the verdict of the IMT which concerns criminal organization and punishment for membership in a criminal organization. In particular I should like to have reference to the recommendations given by the IMT in that respect, first that as far as possible the classifications sanctions and punishment should be the same in the four zones of occupation in Germany, and that uniformity should be recognized as a principle.
Secondly, Law No. 10, to which reference has been made before, says that punishment can be left within the decision of the court, even including the competence of inflicting the supreme penalty. The De-Nazification Law of 5 March, 1946 applicable for Bayern, GrossHessen, and Wuerttenberg-Baden provides certain punishment for all classes of criminals. The Tribunal recommends that those punishments inflicted on the basis of Military Control Law No. 10 concerning a member of a criminal organization must not be higher than those decided on by the Do-Nazification law.
My next exhibit now will be Defense Exhibit No. 20, which will be an extract from the De-Nazification law which deals with the various punishments applicable to the various classes of defendants concerned. May I point out in this connection that according to Article XV against so-called main guilt persons, they are to be committed to a labor camp for a period of time between two and ten years, for what they call incriminated persons, labor camp up to five years, and I should like to point out that a difference is applicable here between labor camp and prison, that the punishment is not that the person is sent to prison. He is merely being sent to a labor camp.
That brings me to the end of Book No. I. Book No. II will contain three affidavits. Should I submit those on some other occasion?
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead now.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Defense Exhibit Fanslau No. 21 will be an affidavit by Rudolf Klotz which confirms what we have been told before by Defendant Fanslau's brother, namely that Defendant Fanslau volunteered to become a prisoner of war, and that immediately he gave his full name and rank, which as I shall explain later on, is another proof of his good conscience.
Defense Exhibit No. 22 will be an affidavit by Doris Levi, who is a Jewess, and she speaks about her good relations to the defendant and his whole family.
A particular impressive document will be Defense Exhibit No. 23, which is an affidavit by Hans Rechenberg whose testimony should touch upon the inability of Fanslau to commit such atrocities as Otto has talked about. Here it says that the Defendant Fanslau was strictly opposed and spoke strictly against the pogroms committed against the Jews.
THE PRESIDENT: Other defense counsel will have their document books ready to present beginning tomorrow morning in whatever order you like, but all the document books that are ready will be presented tomorrow.
We will recess until nine-thirty.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until nine-thirty tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 26 August 1946, at 0930 hours.)
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 26 August 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Robert M. Toms, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Take your seats, please.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Dr. Rauschenbach for defendant August Frank.
If the Tribunal please, I shall now offer my document book No. 1 on behalf of August Frank.
THE PRESIDENT: Do we have it; has it been distributed?
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: If you have not got it yet, I have bought some copies along with me.
Documents Nos. 1 and 2 are not contained in this document book. They will be an appendix to my opening statement and as such have been distributed and have been given Exhibit Nos 1 and 2. I shall therefore start with No. 3. I shall start with Document No. 3 which will become Exhibit No. 3. This document is the well-known Fuehrer order about secrecy and no comments are necessary.
Document No. 4 I shall offer as Exhibit No. 4, and this is an excerpt from the verdict of the I.M.T. to which I shall make reference in my final statement. It is connected with the separation between the administrative activity and the actual activities connected with labor allocation and the inmates of the concentration camps. According to this excerpt from the I.M.T. verdict, those agencies in the RSHA which were dealing only with administrative matters were not condemned. I shall draw a comparison between that and the WVHA.
Document No. 5 is offered as Exhibit No. 5, and I am submitting it with reference to Exhibit 75 of the Prosecution which is Document NO-2327 in Document Book III of the Prosecution.
There the former camp commandant, Pfister, stated that Frank and Hans Loerner; whose counsel, I also am, were present at the conference of the camp commandants. In this affidavit now offered by me he states as follows:
"On behalf of others, who are under indictment there, I have already declared under oath, that I erroneously called joint suppers and conferences of Commanders one event, whereas they should be described as separate ones. The Chiefs of the Amtsgruppen and the Amt Chiefs, among them August Frank and both the Loerners, did not take part in the conferences of the Commanders."
Documents No. 6 and 7, which I shall offer as Exhibits 6 and 7, are related to the use made of Jewish property with which August Frank has been charged. Document 6 shows that according to orders given by the Supreme Head of the Soviet Military Administration the German civilian population also had to hand over all gold and silver and foreign currency.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Doctor, is the date correct on this order, 25th of July, 1945?
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Yes, it is. Yes, your Honor, this is a copycertified by me - of the publication of the staff of the Soviet Military Administration.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: I asked you because that was after the capitulation, 25th of July 1945.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Yes, it was after the capitulation.
Exhibit No. 7 is the German regulation concerning the treatment of property belonging to nationals of the former Polish state. It is dated 7 December 1940. From there it becomes clear that the seizure of Jewish property of all types was carried out by the Chairman of the Ministerial Council for the Reich Defense Ministry, Goering, and not by the WVHA.
The following documents, 8, 9 and 10, which I offer as Exhibits 8, 9 and 10 deal with the last few months prior to the capitulation and are offered in order to prove and support the statement made by Franck on the witness stand that by not carrying out a Fuehrer order be saved extremely valuable property in Germany. No. 8 has been submitted before the I.M.T. and was submitted on behalf of Speer, which was Hitler's order for destruction of 19 March 1945. The second paragraph reads as follows:
"I order:
"All military traffic, communications, industrial and supply installations as well as objects on Reich territory, which the enemy might immediately or later utilize for the continuation of his fight, are to be destroyed."
In the executive order, which is Document No. 9, these principles are once more made clear, and no doubt it was possible that according to this order of the Fuehrer anything of any value and importance in Germany had to be destroyed.
THE PRESIDENT: What connection does this have with the defendant Frank or his defense?
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: It is not concerned immediately with any count in the indictment, but it proves Frank's innocence in one point. I am offering it in order to show that the Defendant Frank was in no way an obedient follower of the Fuehrer. He was quite capable of acting sensibly and reasonably.
THE PRESIDENT: This is March of 1945?
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Yes, quite. Now Speer, who has been sentenced by the I.M.T. has given an affidavit about all this, and he describes Frank's participation in refusing to carry out the order. On Page 1 of Speer's affidavit he says first of all that Frank, in his then capacity as Chief of the Army Administration Office, was charged by Hitler with the administration of all supply depots, clothing depots, food depots of the whole of the Wehrmacht and the Todt Organization.
Therefore it was Frank's duty to destroy those depots. By arrangement with Speer they both did not carry out the destruction. In the last paragraph he says:
"There is no doubt that Frank's order" - which is an order to his subordinate agencies not to destroy anything - "represented a complete disregard of the order for destruction of 19 March 1945. The warehouses of the Wehrmacht and those of the Labor Service and of the Organization Todt were at that time, as I was told, well stocked with supplies. One can assume with certainty that through this order by Frank large quantities of valuable commodities were preserved for the German people."
For the significance of this affidavit I should like to draw attention to Document No. 4. Document No. 4 is the excerpt from the verdict of the I.M.T. In that excerpt I state at the end, and this is an excerpt from the I.M.T. verdict concerning Albert Speer, "In mitigation it must be recognized that Speer's establishment of blocked industries did keep many laborers in their homes, and that in the closing stages of the war he was one of the few men who had the courage to tell Hitler that the war was lost and to take steps to prevent the senseless destruction of production facilities, both in occupied territories and in Germany."
If the Tribunal please, the same thing which was found by the I.M.T. in favor of Speer I shall venture to claim for August Frank in my final plea.
Document No. 11 is offered as Exhibit No. 11, which is an affidavit by Duerrfueld, who is one of the defendants in the I.G. Farben trial. I submit this affidavit only because the Prosecution in the course of this trial, without making detailed statements or offering detailed proof, mentioned the name of Frank in connection with a visit to the Buna-Work. By this affidavit I am making it clear that Frank never visited any of the Buna Works which employed prisoners, certainly not Auschwitz. In the last paragraph he says, "As a former director of the I.G. Farbenindustrie A.G., Auschwitz plant, I herewith confirm that I do not know anything about a visit of Herr Frank to the Auschwitz plant."
Document No. 12 I won't at all. In its place I shall offer another affidavit also by Kurt Becher, which will be part of my second document book.
Frank Document No. 13, which I shall offer as Exhibit No. 12, is an affidavit by the sister of Defendant Frank, who, as he told us in direct examination, married the Jew Rosenberger, in 1933. This brief statement reads as follows:
"The undersigned, Anni Rosenberg nee Frank, at present residing at Sterzing (province Bozen), Italy, states herewith under oath, that her brother, August Frank, had no objections to her marriage, contracted in 1933, with the Jew Philipp Rosenberg and always maintained family relations.
"Herr August Frank in 1939 made it possible for his Jewish brother in-law to flee to Italy and supported him and his family in every respect although, by doing so he himself ran the risk of having the greatest of troubles and endangering his position or even losing it."
Frank Document No. 14 will be Exhibit No. 13 and this is an affidavit by Max Stahl who describeds an incident when Kammler, of the WVHA persecuted him and Frank protected him against any further persecution, The last paragraph reads as follows?
"General Frank, in spite of the fact that he must have been aware of the difficulties facing him, in view of the vindictive and inferior character of the chief of the building office, General Kammler, positively took my part, and his interference was sufficiently successful in having the indictment for high treason and building economy sabotage withdrawn.
"The worst was planned against me and even if my life was not at stake, I was certainly saved from staying in a concentration camp for many years through the energetic interference of General Frank."
THE PRESIDENT: What has this to do with the indictment? This is an affidavit that Frank was kind to a man named Stahl.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: It is connected with the questions addressed to him in his examination of a general nature, whether he knew anything about, or what did he know about concentration camps, in particular about the manner in which people were committed to concentration camps and what had he done about it. This is an example to show that in cases where he had sufficient influence he prevented a man from being committed to a concentration camp.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then it is proof that he could have prevented people from being committed to concentration camps.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH(Counsel) for defendant Aug. Frank): I shall comment on this in my final plea, ans sum up my defense in this respect; I shall not submit anything else in this document book.
THE PRESIDENT: You would rather not discuss it just now.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: And then there are two more affidavits which also statements about his character. They deal with Frank's person, his way of thinking, and his character--although they do not refer to any special count in the indictment. This is an affidavit by a brother-inlaw, who is an American citizen. This affidavit, by a technical oversight, is in German document book byt has not been translated. I therefore, have to read the important passage in English.
THE PRESIDENT: We have an affidavit here from Albert Wegman, Frank's brother-in law
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Yes, it is Exhibit 14 and Document No.15.
THE PRESIDENT: We have it.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: No; the German document book has not got the German copy. I have it in English and, therefore, have to read it in English. The third paragraph.
"...He has never expressed racial or religious prejudices in any form, and the very fact that his own sister has a Jewish husbond and our mutual mother-in-law is a devout Catholic who always preferred to make his home her own would seem to bear out my belief that he has no such prejudices."
"I consider him utterly incapable of committing criminal, cruel or even unkind acts towards his fellow human beings."
The last document, No. 16, which is Exhibit No. 15, is a somewhat original and unusual document. It is a very simple letter. As this letter has been addressed to this Court and was passed on to me as Defense counsel, I believe that it is not without its probative value, and that shows how somebody hearing about this trail entirely spontaneously, believed he had something to say and contribute to Frank's defense.
This is a man who was a book seller in Berlin in 1939, who was visited there by Frank in civilian clothes. This book seller advised Frank at the time not to buy National Socialist books; after all, the book seller did not know he was talking to an SS-Obergruppenfuehrer. Frank did not do anything against this man, and later on he came back ans was always equally nice and kind to him.
This shows, in other words, that the defendant Frank did not react in a manner which one usually expected from a fanatical National-Socialist, and SS officer, especially the way foreigners would expect him to react.
This is the end of Document Book No.1 on Frank. Unfortunately, Document Book No 2 has not been translated yet. I would like, however, to make this suggestion.
Mr. President, if I could briefly talk about the original documents, it will take much less time than I spent on Document Book 1. Then the Prosecution, as soon as they are in possession of Document Book 2, may raise any objection they want, and the Tribunal would be in a position to read them. I should merely like to establish a connection between the books. My intentions is, in other words briefly to talk about the original documents which I have before me without the document books actually being ready yet.
MISS. JOHNSON: Your Honor, on behalf of the Prosecution I object to that procedure for the simple fact that counsel may find himself commenting at this time on documents which are not admissible.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if he comments on a document which is not received, the Tribunal will wipe out his comments from its memory. This might be a helpful way to give us a short survey of what he propose to offer.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: The first document of Document Book 2 which is Document 17 is an affidavit by Kurt Becher from whom there was an affidavit in Book 1, which I have abbreviated very considerably.
Becher, in this affidavit, says that Fank,when the Oppenheimer's breeding estate was purchase from a half-Jew, he prevented the whole thing from being carried out-rather, he prevented the owner from being swindled out of the money which was his. Against Himmler's wisher, he saw to it that Ippenheim was compensated in am entirely proper manner. He did that in his capacity as an official of the WVHA.
Document No.18 I am fot offering. It is an affidavit by Conrad Morgen, whom we have heard here on the witness stand. This has become superfluows after the cross examination.
The documents 19 through 23 are all of them concerned with the plan of the Prosecution connected with the establishment of the SS Administrative Office about which the in tress Kaindl was questioned. All these statements are made by people who drew the chart of the office, and they all state that they knew too little about the details. They are not in a position to confirm that concentration camp matters were part of the group budget, and that Kaindl, who is mentioned above, was in the administrative office beyond the year of 1936.
Document 24 will be a survey of financila hadlings in the WaffenSS, and the court will be able to see the manner which was observed within the Waffen SS when money was transferred or accounted.
Document 25 is an affidavit by a man called Ernst Ruff who was in a concentration camp. At the end of May, 1945, he worked in Bayrischzell, in the SS Berghaus, with a labor in the WVHA, but he happened to be there as a guest, and he happened to be also the senior SS officer. People addressed themselves to him when these labor detachments were ordered to the Tzrol. And Ruff says about that:
"At the end of May, 1945; I was working with a labor detachment in Bayrischzell in the SS Berghaus. As no food was available for the inmates anymore the transport detachments were ordered to transport the inmates to Tyrol.
Our experiences taught us that this would have meant certain death for all of us. Hauptsturmfuehrer Theate, in whose hospital we were working, reported this fact to Obergruppenfuehrer Frank who at that time was a guest at the SS Berghaus in Bayrischzell. Although this was far from being Frank's competence, but we was the only high SS officer present. In my presence Frank sent a telegram with the order that these transports should be stopped and the inmates, for reasons of humanity, should be handed over to the American Army. This was done and this was how Frank saved thousands of lives."
Once the document books are ready I shall submit these documents to the Secretary General with exhibit numbers, and the Prosecution will then be in a position to comment on them.
As Defense counsel for Hans Loerner, I am now submitting the document book of Hans Loerner. Should the Tribunal not have any English copies I have brought some along.
Document No. 1 is offered as Exhibit No. 1; and this is an affidavit by Wolfram Sievers, who was the business manager of the Ahnenerbe, and a defendant in the medial trial. Is is connected with document submitted by the Prosecution, 098 which is Exhibit 234 in Document Book 9; and Document 422, which is Exhibit 202 in Document Book 7. In document 098, Exhibit 234, these is the following note by Sievers:
"The financial means for the institute for military research will be paid from dunds of the Waffen SS, as ordered by the Reichfuehrer-SS and as already discussed in detail between SS Standertenfuehrer Loerner and me."
He makes the following statement about this remark in my affidavit.
"This discussion which I had with the former Ehief of Office A-1, "Budget" in the Main Economic and Administrative Office, Hans Loerner, was a conference which had been called by order of Himmler, dated 7 July 1942, Document NO 422; according to this order I was to get in with the Chief of the SS Main Economic and Administrative office about the expenses for the Institute for Military Scientific Research, which were to be paid from funds of the Waffen-SS he, in turn referred me to the Chief of Office A-1, Loerner.
During this conference with Loerner only financial matters were discussed, that is, which budget was to be charged with the current expenses, and which office was to pay possible wages. As the Appreciation for Research and Education, the Ahnenerbe society, registered, never obtained nor spent money of the Waffen SS and there being a Waffen SS budget with the Ahnenerbe accordingly the Chief of the Office A-1 "Budget" decided that the budges of the personal Stall of the Reichfuehrer-SS was to supply the necessary funds for the expenses of the Institute for Military Scientific Research."
"In view of the orders given, there was neither cause nor opportunity to talk about the type and the scientific execution of the task given to the institute with its seven departments, as neither I nor Loerner know anything about the details nor did we have the necessary preliminary specialized training fro that. In particular nothing was said during these conferences about the experiments carried out by the various departments of the institute."
The Prosecution have linked. Loerner with the inhumane experiments on the basis of this remark, which is part of Document 254. The following documents, Loerner 234 and 235, deal with Loerner's positions and activities within the WVHA. They point out that his activities were restricted to paying out wages within the regulations of the Party and the Waffen-SS, and general supply problems, and other purely technical matters of payment.
In Document No. 3, Exhibit No. 3, Horst Kukatsch, who has given the affidavit, says as follows:
"Although, after Eggert's departure, I got a look at the entire incoming mail of Office A-II, I can certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that I had no knowledge of the following: (a) internal concentration camp affairs, (b) matters concerning the utilization of Jewish property or the so-called "Reinhardt Action" respectively, (c) the granting of credit to the economic department, and (d) medical experiments on concentration camp inmates."
The affiant is the man who was in charge of the entire incoming mail of Hans Loerner's office. He is, therefore, in a position to say what Loerner could learn in this way.
In the Document No. 4, which is Exhibit No. 4, the last paragraph is particular importance, particularly from the point of view of relations between Amtsgruppen A and D. This is what it says:
"Amtsgruppe D had its own form specialist in Oranienburg who supervised the matter on his own competence. Whereas the first forms of the Waffen-SS were printed under contract by two printing firms (Mettin & Co., in, Berlin, and Wilhelm Franz Mayr, in Miesbach/ Upper Bavaria) the forms of Amtsgruppe D, as the only exception, were printed in the concentration camps."
Affidavits Loerner 6 and 7 deal exclusively with his character. Number 6 is the affidavit by Hans Menikheim, and it expresses that Loerner who was a client of his, and also and employee, never, from 1930 to 1934, expressed any racial hatred or fanatic sentiments of that type.
And the last affidavit, which is my last document, Hans Loerner No. 7, is a collective affidavit by the inhabitants of Lanzendorf, including the mayor, which is Hans Loerner's native town.
This affidavit, given by nine citizens of Lanzendorf and the mayor, states:
"The undersigned herewith certify that; the former SS-officer Hans Loerner is known to be a man of a quiet, respectable and honest character. He had a good disposition and was kind."
"His being a member of the SS never gave cause to any provocations."
May I point out here that these affidavits, this type of statement, are of a certain importance to me from the point of view of Count A. This brings me to the end of the submission of documents on behalf of Hans Loerner.
DR. HAENSEL (Counsel for Georg Loerner): May it please the Court, I have two document books for Georg Loerner which describe his own case. For the general problems I have submitted a trial brief. Another trial brief deals with the problem of the knowledge of the criminal aims in the sense of law 10, Articles 2, 1-D, together with the IMT verdict. This trial brief has been translated but has not yet been mimeographed and I shall put it at the Court's disposal as soon as the translations have been put before the Court. I am also preparing a summary of the international literature about the conspiracy problem, a problem about which the Court has already ruled. I have done so because Tribunal 3, where I also have the honor to represent a client, wished me to do so in order to put it at the court's disposal for the verdict. I hope that this extensive collection of quotations will be ready in good time, before the Tribunal will render its judgment.
What I can submit today is Document Book 1 on behalf of Georg Loerner. It is ready in English.
THE PRESIDENT: If you will just suspend a moment, Dr. Haensel, we are going to get our Defense document books.