There is no objection to that, Dr. Gawlik.
MR. ROBBINS: This is 4535, which will be Exhibit 671.
The next document, 4652, is Exhibit 672. It states that the--
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I object to the presentation of these two documents. The document has already been presented as NO-1906, Exhibit 493 in Document Book XIX.
MR. ROBBINS: 493?
DR. GAWLIK: And the other document also.
MR. ROBBINS: I was aware that the next document was Exhibit 493. I didn't know 4652 was in Document Book No. XIX. If it is, I will not offer it at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: Give us the reference number. What is the exhibit number, Mr. Robbins?
MR. ROBBINS: Exhibit 493 - I don't recall what it is. It is in Book XIX and I believe, at least, the next document is at page 90 of Book XIX.
THE PRESIDENT: I am quite sure they have been in the previous books. They sound familiar.
MR. ROBBINS: I know that the next one has.
I will pass then to the report on OSTI dated 13 March 1944, which is NO-4624, which will be Exhibit 672.
DR. HAENSEL: I only wanted to ask that I could take a look at the original.
MR. ROBBINS: I think it has been disputed -- I know it has been disputed that OSTI had anything to do with Action Reinhardt and I believe that this document shows that OSTI did concern Action Reinhardt. An interesting notation is contained on page 5 of the document and the entire document is signed by Dr. Horn. It states that 16,000 Jews and 1,000 Poles were working on OSTI up until the 3rd of November 1943, when they were suddenly withdrawn from OSTI and on the next page a reference is made to the destruction of certain property through the Action on the 3rd of November 1943.
At paragraph 5, it is stated that Pohl had ordered the liquidation of OSTI in November.
MR. ROBBINS: The next document, 4569, will be Exhibit 673. This is a letter from Dr. Horn to the Defendant Baier stating that he is submitting the balance sheet of Osti to Baier in Staff W. This document as well as several of the succeeding documents is offered to prove the connection between Staff W and Osti and that, in fact, Staff W supervised the management of Osti, the proposition that was denied by the defense.
The next two documents were not ready for inclusion in the document book, 4570 and 4571. They are in the German Books, but they are not being offered in evidence, because the English translation is not ready.
I will pass to Document 4572, which is a memorandum for the Defendant Baier. It will be Exhibit 674. This was submitted to Baier by Horn along with the other documents and the last paragraph states, "To the Chief W, submitted with the request for cognizance and so it may perhaps be forwarded to the Revision Department as material for an examination, which is to take place in the future." This is connected with a document which is included in the book at a later point.
The next document, 4573, is the balance sheet of Osti of the 29th of February, 1944, which is referred to in Exhibit 673, as being sent from Horn to Baier. This will be Exhibit 675.
The next document is a document with many questions concerning the operation of Osti. It is 4574 and will be Prosecution Exhibit 676. This, as the questions and answers show, is a memorandum which corresponds to Exhibit 674. 674 contains the answers to the questions enumerated in Exhibit 676.
And the next document, Preliminary Balance Sheet of Osti, 2382 --- The next document is a balance sheet of Osti, which is referred to in the correspondence with Baier which has already been submitted, and it will be exhibit 677, NO-2382.
The next letter from Horn to Baier, 2382B, will be exhibit 678. It deals in great detail with the operation of the glass factory of Osti and about the middle, just below the middle of the second page is a statement that as the SS members are no longer needed, they are sent back to the personnel office of the WVHA, if there are no other orders from the WVHA. The Tribunal will recall that the Defendant Fanslau testified that the WVHA testified that the WVHA sent no personal establishment in connection with the Osti.
The next document, which is 23820, will be Exhibit 679. This is a letter from Baier to Horn, dealing with the report on the operation of Osti. It is stated that it has been decided that the Osti is not to be transferred to Litzmannstadt and the liquidation of Osti is dealt with in the letter.
The next document is a part of the correspondence between Horn in Staff W and is addressed to the Chief of the WVHA and to Dr. Volk and contains the initials of Dr. Volk and refers to the balance sheet of the 31st of December, 1943, which is the next document following.
2382D will be Exhibit 680 and the balance sheet, which is 2582E will be Exhibit 681. Here again the withdrawal of the labor force on the 3rd of November, 1943, is referred to and that 16,000 Poles were withdrawn.
THE PRESIDENT: What's that?
MR. ROBBINS: That is 2382E, Exhibit 681.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that 681.
MR. ROBBINS: Yes. I might say, I'm having an index to these document books prepared so I think it will be easier to deal with.
The next is 2382F, which will be Exhibit 682, from Baier to Mauer and he states that he is worried about the things that are coming across his desk concerning Osti.
The next letter is from Horn to Baier. It is 4512 and will be Exhibit 683, also dealing with the operation of Osti. The court will recall that the Defendant Baier testified that he had one or two of those letters in the correspondence between himself and Horn and that they dealt mostly with matters of furniture and personnel
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I object to all these document, because these documents are contained in our document books and consequently we are unable to follow the presentation by the prosecution here.
MR. ROBBINS: I believe it is in there.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I just heard that the supplements are not here, A,B,C,D, they are not contained in our document books.
MR. ROBBINS: I am pretty certain that the German books are complete.
DR. GAWLIK: Well, Your Honor, the numbers are not correctly described so that for the time being we are not able to follow the presentation. We have to check whether the documents are available here.
THE PRESIDENT: It is time for the recess anyway, and you can check it during the recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, the defense counsel wish to put the witness Staminger on the stand because he needs to return to Munich, and if it meets with the approval of the Tribunal, we can interrupt the presentation of documents and put the witness on the stand.
THE PRESIDENT: What witness?
MR. ROBBINS: Staminger for the defendant Tschentscher.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, do it now.
MR. ROBBINS: I should like to say before we leave these books that there are, it appears, two exhibits missing from the German books, and I will withdraw the offer of those documents. Those are Exhibits 677 and 680.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean you will offer them later?
MR. ROBBINS: I don't believe I will, Your Honor. I don't think I will have time to have them copied and mimeographed.
THE PRESIDENT: 677 and 680?
MR. ROBBINS: 677 and 680.
DR. VON STAKELBERG (For the defendant Fanslau): If the Tribunal please, this morning I heard that the witness Steiner, formerly the commanding officer of the Viking Division, has also arrived here. I have not yet had the opportunity of talking to Steiner, but I would be quite ready to call Steiner without talking to him first or perhaps after talking to him for only five minutes outside in the corridor. If the Tribunal wishes this, we could have Steiner immediately after Staminger so that we have a complete picture.
THE PRESIDENT: You may do whichever you like, Dr. von Stakelberg. Call him right after this next witness or possibly, if you want to talk to him during the noon recess, we'll hear him right after lunch. Do whichever you like.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Yes, I believe that the next witness will take roughly until lunch so that we can have Steiner immediately after lunch.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
DR. PRIBILLA (For the defendant Tschentscher): If the Tribunal please, I should like to call the witness Staminger to the witness stand.
(GEORG STAMINGER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:)
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE PHILLIPS): Raise your right hand and repeat after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
You may be seated, please.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. PRIBILLA:
Q. Witness, will you please give the Court your full name?
A. Georg Staminger.
Q. When and where were you born?
A. In Ansbach in Central Franconia on 25 May 1920.
Q. What were you in civilian life.
A. I was a government inspector.
Q. You were a government official, were you?
A. Yes.
Q. And a civil servant?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you a member of the Waffen SS?
A. Yes.
Q. Since when were you a member of the Waffen SS, and were you active or in the reserve?
A. I was in the reserve since 23 October 1939.
Q. Were you a member of the SS Division Viking?
A. Yes.
Q. Since when?
A. Since January 1941.
Q. Until when?
A. Until 17 December 1942.
Q. Witness, will you please make a brief pause after my question until the interpreter has finished translating them? What was your position in the SS Division Viking?
A. I was an auditor.
Q. What did you do?
A. I had to look after the supplies of the company and turn over the pay to the comrades. I should like to emphasize here that I did this only for the company.
Q. For what company?
A. For the 1st Company, the supply services.
Q. Who was in charge of the supply column?
A. The man in charge was the then Sturmbannfuehrer Tschentscher.
Q. Who commanded the whole supply battalion?
A. The commanding officer there was Fanslau.
Q. Witness, are you working today?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you married and have you any children?
A. I am married and have one child.
Q. Have you been denazified yet?
A. I have not yet been denazified but I have been served with the indictment by the Public Prosecutor. I have been indicted under Group 3 and have put in for amnesty under the youth regulations.
Q. You mean the prosecution themselves have suggested that you come under this amnesty?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, before I talk about the actual subject matter, I want to know one thing. Are you under any sort of pressure or are you afraid of anybody if you give your testimony truthfully here before this Tribunal?
A. No.
Q. I want to put something else to you. You have sworn an oath and you know the sacredness and importance of an oath?
A. Yes, I'm aware of that.
Q. You also know that perjury will be heavily punished?
A. Yes, I am aware of that.
Q. Now, look here. You are back in a professional career; you are married; you are the father of one child; and you have every prospect of being denazified soon. You are aware of the fact that by perjury you can jeopardize your chances?
A. Yes, I am fully aware of that.
Q. I also assume that you would not be anxious to have a man who has committed a crime and perhaps murdered somebody else protected and prevented from having just punishment reach him?
A. No, I'm not anxious to have that done at all.
Q. On the other hand, I assume that you are aware of the fact that this Tribunal has the right to decide on the life and death of these defendants?
A. Yes, I am aware of that, too.
Q. You know what the important point here is?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, do you know the defendant Tschentscher?
A. Yes.
Q. You were together with him for 4 period of time when he was at the Russian Front, or with the Viking Division?
A. Yes, I was there throughout that period of time from the begining of my service until its end. I was then with the First Company of the Supply Column.
Q. Tschentscher left the Battalion the end of 1941.
A. Yes, he left then.
Q. Witness, please tell us very openly how your attitude was towards Tschentscher, your personal attitude?
A. I myself once had dispute with Starm baumufuehrer Tschentscher before the Russian Campaign opened. Since that period of time we did not and were not on very good terms. Tschentscher got me nervous, and I avoided him as much as possible and as much as I could.
Q. You mean between you and Tschentscher there was tension?
A. Yes, indeed there was.
Q. Witness, will you please tell me very clearly whether at any time furing the Russian Campaign you experienced the fact that Tschentscher became guilty of any excesses against a civilian person, or Pu's, No matter whether they were Ukranians, Poles or Jews, or anybody?
A. Throughout that period of time when I was a member of the Supply Battalion, I heard nothing of such excesses, nor did I hear anything within the company. Never was a word said about it, nor didd I see any thing myself.
Q. Were you frequently near Tschentscher, or in that vicinity?
A. As an administrative official of the Company I had my office always next to the one of my boss Tschentscher, as soon as we had taken up any billets there. That was usually the case; that is because the supply battalion, as soon as the supplies reached their company, took up billets, and remained there for several days in order to supervise the distribution of the units.
In that period of time I was always in Tschentscher's immediate vicinity.
Q. If I understand you readily, I conclude from that if somebody is in a position to testify to the fact of that Tschentscher did during the Campaign, you would be the person?
A. Yes, I was always next to him, and I could observe and see everything when something happened, or whenever something was going on that company.
Q. Witness, did you hear of another witness here who was called Sauer? Do you know Sauer from the old days?
A. Yes, I know Sauer. He was with the Butcher Platoon, with the Butcher Company, and I met him in Munich once, and lately I met him here when the Prosecution had asked me to become a witness here. I met him I imagine in the Witness' building.
Q. He was with the Third Company, wasn't he?
A. Yes, he was in the Third Company.
Q. Witness, Sauer has told us here about one incident which he said he had seen himself. That incident he reported took place in regard to Mr. Suerth, and what he told us was that Obersharfuehrer Suerth had shot six Jews in a barn. Do you remember Shitomir?
A. Yes, indeed I do. The Supply battalion was then located outside of Shitomir in a sort of farm, and the Baker and Butcher Companies were in Zhitomir itself, in a larger place, sort of barracks. They were farm stable buildings.
Q. The witness Sauer has told us that the Supply Battalion, the Butcher and Baker Companies were located together in a barracks in Zhitomir?
A. No. The Supply Battalion, as emphasized, was located outside of Zhitomir, on a fruit-garden farm, the Butcher and Baker Companies were together in billets.
Q. Together?
A. Yes.
Q. You could not possible make a mistake there?
A. No, I myself was present in this fruit-garden on afarm.
Q. And Tschentscher was there, too?
A. Yes, he was the boss in this camp.
Q. Where was Tschentscher's car?
A. Tschentscher's car was at the top of the camp near the entrance of the main road. There were buildings, several buildings, rather, where the staff was accommodated, the company chief, and next to it there was a large barn where the whole supplies of the Division were stocked.
Q. There was an order that the Supply Battalion was to be located outside of Zhitomir and separated from the Bakery and Butcher Companies. Did you talk to Otto Sauer when you met him first?
A. Yes, Sauer and I lived together in the witness' building, and we talked at length, as for instance, about all the questions which ha been submitted to Otto by the Prosecution, and about which I had been interrogated, and I gave to my of the question my opinion, and of what I knew, and I emphasized the fact that the Supply Battalion had not been located together with the Baker and Butcher Companies. I said to Sauer also that any incident which had occurred with the Supply Battalion, I should have been in a position to know about it. Accordingly, we talked then about one incident which the Prosecution had put to me regarding Tschentscher -
Q. Well, we should talk about that incident later on. But I am interested in it now in this connection of whether Sauer when you talked to him it the time contradicted you, or rather he had a different opinion and whether he admitted that the Supply Battalion was not located together with the Butcher and Baker Battalions?
A. Sauer told me at that time the he knew -- he told me that he knew that we had been located somewhere else, and that the Butcher and Baker companies were located together.
Q. Witness, this alleged incident of the alleged shooting of six Jews by Sureth have you heard about this, if by rumors, perhaps?
A. No, I did not hear one work about that, nor did the Supply Battaling know, they knew nothing about this, not the men at least, and the others also did not know anything about. Quite generally we did not mix too much with the Baker and Butcher Companies, so rarely I would now what did happen to others.
Q. You at any rate heard nothing about this?
A. No, I heard nothing about that incident.
Q. The witness Sauer, although he was then not speaking from his own observation but bases what he daid on hearsay, had mentioned another two incidents; one incident concerned you up to a point. He said that in the Biala-Zierkew camp the defendant Tschentschcr had shot at a Jew, that he missed and had hit the leaders, of officer's car, of your own officer's car, so that you jumped out of the car because you were afraid that you might be hit yourself?
A. I know nothing about that incident. This incident was told to me also by the Prosecution, and I told them in the presence of Otto that this was not so. As I said before I talked to Sauer about it, and I told him that I knew nothing about this incident, or, rather, that the incident had never taken place. I was in a vehicle and I was a driver of the vehicle, but throughout that period of time of my service I never had one shot taken at this vehicle, not even a splinter. It was completely undamaged until the end, and this incident in Biala-Zierkew is not true. I know nothing about it.
Q. Witness, do you still remember Biala-Zierkew very clearly today?
A. Yes, I know this place very well. There was a vinegar factory located there, and there among a number of building there was a large barn where we again stocked our supplies, and in the building itself our Chief, Sturmbahnfuehrer Tschentscher was situated in a room next to mine, where I handled the company money and supplies, and my vehicle was parked in ******er nearby.
Q. It was not a real camp but you were accommodated in a building there?
A. Yes, it was a building.
Q. Witness, it is, of course extremely difficult for us to understand how rumores of this sort can **** about particularly when it is being told in so many details with names, and so forth. Was there some incident perhaps in Biala-Zierkew which might have lead to rumors of this sort being circulated around?
A. Well, near our accommodations there was frequest shooting. I recall one incident very early in the morning. There was a road which lead past our building, and some shots were fires from that road. The reason why was not clearly made known, we were told it must have been done by a sentry or patrol, who had shot at somebody, but any precise details did not become known in the company, but anyway this road was part of the camp, and many units using it had to go back and forth and frequently would park their vehicles every day and night, and it had happened once or twice that some member of one of those strange companies fired a shot.
Q You just said a while ago, or mentioned the word "Camp"?
A Well, I did not mean a camp. I meant this building in which we were.
Q This incident when the sentry fired a shot occurred near the Supply Battalion, or near another unit?
A That incident must have occurred near the main corner of the building or just outside of the building, It was near the building where one of the squadrons was billeted, and in that corner, whether it was now inside or outside of the camp, I could not find out, because I was still asleep, I was told about it afterwards. I assume that it was not near that part of the building in which out companies was, as otherwise we would have heard about it, and you would have learned more precise details.
Q Were these certain squadrons which you mentioned under Tschentscher's command?
A No, the T-Squadron was a unit of the battalion which had to look after the vehicles, in every sense of the word, and they had taken the same billets with us at the time, as I would say there was suitable space where you could look after the engines and so forth.
Q Will you give us the name of the man in charge of the T-Squadron, the commanding officer?
A Yes, this was Oberscharfuehrer Senn, who was in charge of the technical side of the vehicles.
Q witness, was there with the Supply Battalion anything at all which might have been formed as the basis for these rumors, for instance, did the Supply Company employ Jews or anybody else?
A No, I never saw Jews, or Ukranians, or any other foreigners work for the Supply Unit. There were two or three there, but no Jew came into that kitchen; with the T-Squadron there were two or three Ukranians, and one Mongalian, who worked there. They knew all about vehicle.
****** been technicians with the Russian Army, and had become prisoners of war. They were employed by us, and they went along, and t********** being with us. While I was with the Supply Battallion ******* the time, and they had a very good time, and they did not want to leave the unit at all. One of them, the Mongolian he was extremely popular, and he had his legs pulled frequently. As I say, he was highly popular with the company, and nothing was over done to him.
Q Was that Mongolian named Assi's Mossaiew?
A Well, I don't remember his surname. But I still remember the name of Assi. It was the name we used in the company for him.
Q What did he look like?
A He was small, very dark, and brown complexion, and if you looked at him very closely you could see that he was a Mongolian. He was short, and had pock scars.
Q In other words, there was one such, a dark man with your Supply Company?
A Yes.
Q Who was very well known, and was popular, and the people would like to pull his leg. Might there be a grain of truth of these rumors?
A Yes, that is quite possible, as I said before, we pulled his leg very frequently, and he enjoyed it himself. He quite frequently pretended to be shot by somebody, and pretended to be dead, and it was sort of like a Punch and Judy show.
Q But never any harm was done to him?
A No.
Q Was he still with the company when you in 1942 were transferred?
A Yes, I am not quite sure but I think he still was with the company, because he stayed with the supply office for a long period of time. So far as I know on one occasion they were allowed to go back to their home, but most of them who worked with us refused to do so. They wanted to stay with us as volunteers and to work.
Q Witness, there is another incident which Sauer has told us, basing himself on hearsay. He said that a man called Kirsch had told him that Tschentscher ordered him at the point of a gun to shoot a Jew. That is supposed to have happened in Fiodorke. Do you know of Fiodorke, and do you know anything of such an incident?
A I still remember Fiodorke very well. I know nothing of any such incident. I was also accommodated in a building next to the kitchen in a room which was, so far as I remember, next to Tschentscher's room, of any such incident, or order, I never heard anything at all. I am not inclined to believe this because an order of this sort to threaten a man with a gun to make him carry out an order would hardly have been permissible, I can not believe that Sturmbannfuehrer Tschentscher would have been guilty of such, especially, as Tschentscher was in his company regarded as an extremely correct, even an assiduous, officer. He was feared as such, and nobody would have dared to do something of that nature, because such thing would not have been permissible. If somebody had done anything which was not correct he would hide as much as possible from him.
Q Now witness, could it not be possible that Tschentscher was always correct in all service matters, but perhaps he was indulgent where there was excesses against the civilian population. Will you tell us, please, in greater detail how Tschentscher acted in this respect?
A Sturmbannfuehrer Tschentscher so far as the civilian population was concerned always behaved very correctly, and so far as I can remember, orders were frequently read according to which looting and excesses against the civilian population were to be severely punished. He himself, I know, never became guilty of anything, and if he had or would have heard anything that somebody on his own had taken any liberties in this respect, I am sure he would have at once have taken severe action. As everybody knew this in the company, as far as I know, then nothing over happened in this respect, which would have needed a more severe punishment, At least, nobody in our company ever heard anything of that sort.
Q Witness, you have told us quite frankly that there was tension between you and Tschentscher. If I understood you correctly, this was caused not by Tschentscher having done anything criminally, or incorrect things, but it seems to me that this was based on Tschentscher's exaggerated correctness?
A Yes, it was a purely disciplinary affair. At the time by vehicle was not quite in shape as it would have been, I was also in charge of the pay-office, and I did not have time to keep my vehicle in shape, as would a driver who would have nothing else to do. This made me feel very indignant, and I told the commanding officer of the T-Squadron that I was no longer able to look after my vehicle properly that I had no time. That if it was left behind, someone else could look after it. That was the incident on the basis of which I was to be punished, but as we went into active service, the trial and punishment was never carried out.
Q I am extremely grateful for your having told us all these things of this exaggerated correctness, and fastidiousness, and the pettiness on the part of Tschentscher, which as you have told us very clearly, not only concerned service matters, but particularly also the conduct towards these civilian populations. Should excesses, looting, mistreatment or anything of that sort have happened, he did not let matters pass by, but he would have done something immediately, had something done, generally?
A Yes, from his reputation in the company we knew him, he was very severe in all matters, and punished for anything and everything that would happen against regulations. Particularly, as I said before, we had special orders from our chief where he would particularly warn us against excesses against the civilian population, and he would have punished severely and heavily.
Q Witness, did Tschentscher expect only the subordinates to be correct, or do you know that he himself behave equally well and correctly? What about that?
A He was a typical officer. He was as would expect an officer to be. He did not expect his company to do something, which he would not do himself. He slept in the vehicles as we did, if we were parked on the road, and when we were in a building he slept in that office where we had worked, and, he was extremely austere, towards the company and himself. Any privileges -- special privileges for the officers, or any other person of the company were never allowed; as I said he was extremely correct in these things.
Q You say quite clearly, if Tschentscher had been more self-indulgent, if from time to time he had killed somebody, had robbed somebody, or allowed himself to commit excesses, and mistreatment and things of this sort, you would have known it, and the company would have known it also?
A Yes, nothing could be kept a secret from the company. If the boss were absent, we knew it then always the driver or somebody else was with him. When he was with the company, we were mostly together in so small a space that everybody saw, heard and knew what was going on in the company, and what the boss had done, and what was said.
Q. Witness, you heard from me what the witness Sauer, in deviation from your testimony and other testimony, has told us here. Can you give us any indication why Sauer should testify to that effect? Do you believe that Sauer was, perhaps, under any sort of pressure, that he is afraid of something?
A. I know nothing of any pressure under which Sauer may have been put, but when I talked to him in Nuernberg about all these things and from what I had noticed, he was very much afraid of Otto. He himself said that Otto was a dangerous man and he was afraid that if he did something which Otto didn't like Otto would later on, on the basis of his position, get him into trouble. I know that when we had lunch one day Otto was in front of us, and he said to me, would we please wait a moment and go behind the wall for a moment because he did not want to see Otto. Otto was a dangerous man. We left until a few people were standing between Otto and us, and we queued up behind him. My impression was that Sauer was very much afraid of Otto. The only possibility is that he said this once again in order to maintain his first testimony because I told him in great detail when Sauer and I talked it over that this was not true.
MR. ROBBINS: Now that the witness has told the facts that he saw, I think there is no need for him to speculate further as to what Sauer was thinking.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the witness has finished now, I think.
I merely meant that the witness had finished the answer to this question.
DR. PRIBILLA: I myself had finished my interrogation.
Or, Your Honor, I was struck by the expression in which he said that Sauer was afraid of Otto because of Otto's position. I did not quite understand what he meant. Perhaps I could ask the witness to explain this to me.
BY DR. PRIBILLA:
Q. What do you mean by "position"?