Q Did you see any that had starved to death?
A Starved to death? A great many died of starvation and mistreatment there; and the corpses were, all of them, only skeletons.
Q About how many inmates would you estimate died while you were there, who had died as a result of mistreatment and starvation?
A I cannot give you the figure because I do not have the precise information, but most of them died of starvation and exhaustion.
Q What happened to you from a physical standpoint?
A To me, you mean? What happened to me, you mean?
Q Yes.
A I see. Well, as far as I was concerned, as long as I was in the camp--inside the camp, I mean -I was exposed to all these things just as much as everybody else was. The place of work itself was more favorable as far as I was concerned because I was alone. I was supervised only by a sentry.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q You were born in Germany?
A Yes, certainly.
Q Your father is a German?
A Yes.
Q You are not Jewish?
A No.
Q You are a Christian? You believe in God?
A I am a Jehovah's Witness.
Q Yes, well, Jehovah's Witnesses believe in God?
A Yes.
Q Of course. The trouble is you just believed in the wrong way; you believed in the same God but you took a different way of expressing your belief, and for that you spent nine years in prison?
A Well, we believe what the Bible says; and in many cases the various religious systems contradict what the Bible says. For instance, the Scriptures forbid murder; and for that reason we did not support in any way the preparation for war. For instance, we did not contribute to the armament factories when here were collections in the street. We did not say "Heil Hitler". For those and similar reasons we were declared to be enemies of the state.
Q That was three years before there was any war?
A Yes, indeed.
DR. BERGOLD: I have one more question.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q You were sentenced by the verdict of a proper court, a proper court with judges?
A Yes, the Special Court in Berlin.
DR. BERGOLD. Thank you.
Q We had here in court a few days ago the death books of the Concentration Camp Wewelsburg, and one of the -
A Yes.
Q -- death books listed that one of the inmates at Wowelsburg had died because he smoked too many cigarettes. Did you know of any death resulting from excessive smoking in the concentration camp?
A No, I know nothing about that.
Q That must have been a false entry, was it not?
A Now sofar as I know the inmates only smoked the butts which the guards had thrown down, or would "shoot them", and when cigarettes were issued to the inmates, otherwise, to the best of my knowledge this was done as a reward to the professional criminals who had hanged people who had been sentenced.
Q About how many inmates were in Wewelsburg, witness, during the year of 1943, January, February and March?
THE PRESIDENT: Haven't we got that in a more credible form, or records?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, as a matter of fact the record is a little bit skimpy on this point, just how many inmates there were. I think it is important because the book shows the number of deaths, but it is not exactly certain how many inmates were there.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but I assume the gardener would merely guess at it anyway.
MR. ROBBINS: I think he would.
THE WITNESS: Yes. When I arrived on 16 February 1940 from Sachsenhausen to Wewelsburg, and at that time this transport, sofar as I know, consisted of two-hundred and fifty men. In the course of the next few months a few more came from Buchenwald Camp, and the figure was then roughly increased to about five-hundred. After that new transports of inmates arrived, most of them who had come there were professional criminals, but also political ones, and asocial ones. At that time the figure consisted of about eight-hundred inmates.
Q About what year was that?
A That must have been in 1941, I should say. Later on very many Russians and Ukrainians arrived, very young people, and the highest figure, as far as I know, reached eighteen-hundred or two-thousand.
Q And when was that?
A That was in or by the end of 1942, and the beginning of '43, the first months of 1943. After that the Camp was dissolved, and that was remained behind was only a detachment of fifty inmates, fifty Jehova's Witnesses. They were all of them skilled workers, and were at the disposal of the castle.
Q Now in March 1943, out of the eight-hundred inmates who were there -- or eighteen-hundred inmates, around one-hundred and twenty-five died in one month?
A Yes.
Q What was the reason for so many people dying in March of 1943?
A First of all because they were exhausted, and the result of ill treatment, and cold. On one morning I recall there were those who were no longer capable of working. They were carried out of the barracks, around the square where the roll call was held, and there they were laid down on the ground, outside their block, so that the block had been able to be there completely; they were beaten and kicked and forced to get up, and they were under any circumstances to take their place in the roll call. Many of them were taken out to the working place in dying condition; others died a few hours later in the barracks, or in the hospital.
Q Witness, did you ever work outside the concentration camp?
AAt the beginning when I came to Wewelsburg, first I worked in the stone quarry.
Q Did you ever march through the city of Wewelsburg, rather the hamlet or town?
A Yes, I did, but not very often.
Q One witness testified here that a witness who was a citizen of Wewelsburg, that he had seen the inmates carrying dead and beaten inmates through the city.
Did you ever see scenes such as that?
A That was an extremely well known fact, because all my comrades witnessed this. I myself saw when we marched in how they were carried in the midst of the column into the camp. Furthermore, I know that when inmates had died at their place of work, a sentry was left behind until the corpse was fetched by car -- by motorcar -- a closed motorcar.
Q Witness, then you would say the population of Wewelsburg had an opportunity to know the inmates in the concentration camp were being mistreated?
A The camp management did everything in order to hide this fact from the population of the village. I believe that inhabitants had the opportunity to assume rather than to know these things.
Q Did you know that there were inmates from many different nations in Wewelsburg?
A Yes, I met a variety of people, and a great many Russians, Frenchmen and Belgiums. One Belgium I know came from Brussels, a man called Henry, but I don't knew his surname. He made gloves, and he ate his heart out in longing for his mother. At one time he wrote a letter by the institution of the Red Cross. In that letter he said, "Dear Mother. I am dying here of starvation, and from longing to see you." That letter was not sent off, and he was ticked off because of this letter, and, later on through the Red Cross again, he is said to have written a letter to his mother but he died.
Q Then further, that book shows that some Americans died at Wewelsburg. Did you know any Americans in the concentration camp?
A It is possible, but I did not know that because the number was very large, and one could not know all the people in the various blocks.
MR. ROBBINS: All right, that is all.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused. Have the next witness ready after the recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes.
(Recess)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
ALBERT SCHATKOWSKY, a witness, took the stand and was examined and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: Will you stand please. Will you repeat after me: I affirm that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the affirmation.)
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q Witness, please make a brief pause after every question which I ask you so that the interpreters will be able to complete the translation of my questions. Please tell the Tribunal your first name and your family name.
A Schatkowsky, Albert.
Q When were you born?
A 16 August 1900.
Q Where were you born?
AAt Przyroschen.
Q Is that in Germany?
A It is in the district of Johannesburg, East Prussia.
Q That was Germany before?
A Yes.
Q Where are you living now?
AAt Wewelsburg.
Q Witness, you are a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses?
A Yes.
Q Is it correct that in the year 1935 or 1936 you were tried by a German court because you continued a prohibited organization in existence, namely, the Jehovah's Witnesses?
A Yes. That was in 1936.
Q Is it correct that after you had served your sentence, you were sent to a concentration camp?
A Yes.
Q Is it correct that from February 1940 until the spring of 1945 you were at the camp in Wewelsburg?
A From May 1940 until April 1945.
Q During this period of time, did you hear anything about Obersturmbannfuehrer Horst Klein, or did you see him in the concentration camp during that time?
A No, I did not see him there, nor did I hear of him.
Q I ask the Defendant Klein to stand.
(The defendant Horst Klein rose.)
Q Take a look at this man. Have you ever seen him at Wewelsburg at the camp?
A. No.
Q Have you heard in general who gave the orders at Wewelsburg with regard to the inmates?
A That was the commandant by the name of Haas.
Q Is it correct that Commandant Haas was subordinated to Gruppenfuehrer Gluecks?
A That escapes my knowledge.
DR. BERGOLD: I have no further questions. Go ahead Mr. Robbins.
Mr. Robbins: I have no questions.
THE PRESIDENT: No further questions? Next witness.
DR. BERGOLD: Witness, you may leave the courtroom now.
(Witness excused.)
ERNST SPECHT, a witness, took the stand and was examined and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat after me, please: I affirm that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the affirmation.)
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q Witness, please make a brief pause after each of my questions, so that my questions will be translated into English first. Please tell the Tribunal your first name and your family name.
A My name is Specht, Ernst.
Q When and where were you born?
A I was born at Paulswiese, Mark Berlin.
Q And when?
A 6 March 1902.
Q Where are you living now?
A I am now a resident of Wewelsburg.
Q Witness, is it correct that you are a member of Jehovah's Witnesses?
A Yes
Q Is it correct that in the year 1935 or 1936 you were tried by a German court because of the maintenance of a prohibited organization, namely, the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses?
A Yes.
Q Is it correct that later on you were committed to a concentration camp?
A Yes.
Q Is it correct that from February 1940 until April 1945 you were at the camp at Wewelsburg?
A Yes.
Q Witness, during this period of time, did you ever hear of the Defendant Obersturmbannfuehrer Horst Klein, or did you ever see him in the concentration camp during that period of time?
A No.
Q I ask the Defendant Klein to stand up.
(Defendant Klein rose.)
Q Look at this man. Have you ever seen him at Wewelsburg?
A No.
DR. BERGOLD: I have no further questions. Mr. Robbins, go ahead, please.
MR. ROBBINS: I have no questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
(The witness excused.)
DR. STAKELBERG (Counsel for defendant Fanslau): Your Honor, the Prosecution witness, Dr. Jollek, has described in detail what the uniform of the SS men who committed atrocities at Zclozow looked like. I consider it necessary to ask the defendant Fanslau some very brief questions about the uniforms which were worn by the supply battalion. If the Tribunal please, I would like to call him to the witness stand now.
MR. ROBBINS: If the Tribunal please, one of my assistants has gone to the library to get some pictures of uniforms, and if it would be agreeable with Defense Counsel, I would like for him to wait until they come with the pictures so that we can compare them.
I am not the export on uniforms. Someone else in my organization knows a great deal more about it than I do.
DR. STAKELBERG: Of course, I don't know what sort of pictures these are, whether they are pictures of uniforms worn in peace time or uniforms worn in war time. However, we'll discover that as soon as the pictures are here. I unprepared to wait until the pictures arrive.
MR. ROBBINS: May I put in some documents at this time?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if there are no live witnesses to be produced. Has anyone a witness lying around? Are there any more witnesses who have been approved and who will be called? By anyone?
DR. STAKELBERG: Your Honor, the witness Martin Meier will still be called. He is still on the way here, as far as I am informed. He was approved by the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you any reports from Miss Bendford about him?
DR. STAKELBERG: Miss Bendford told me last night that they had received only the assurance that he had been sent to Nurnberg. However, where he is and if he is already on the way, I do not know. I shall make inquiries of Miss Bendford immediately after the session today.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if he comes any time tomorrow, of course we can still hear him. Is he the last witness to appear personally? I think so. All right, Mr. Robbins, you can proceed with documents.
MR. ROBBINS: We were at Document Book 28, Your Honor. I was half way through.
THE PRESIDENT: 28 and 29 also?
MR. ROBBINS: 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32. May I go ahead? We had reached NO 3192, which concerns the utilization of gold and states that all gold is to go through the WVHA. This will be Prosecution Exhibit 684.
The next document, 4468, will be Prosecution Exhibit 685, and Dr. Haensel has just called my attention to the fact that in the German copy the letterhead reads "Amtsgruppe B". It should be 'Amtsgruppe D." It is correct in the English.
THE PRESIDENT: Signed by Mauer?
MR. ROBBINS: It is initialed by Mauer. The subsequent document, 4469, will be Prosecution Exhibit 686. In the fourth paragraph it is stated that Amtsgruppe D is to make certain that nothing in the shipment of valuables from the action should reveal its origin, showing that it was a part of the job of Amtsgruppe D to conceal the origin of the loot. The file number is Reinhardt.
The next document, 1267, was commented on yesterday by the defendant Hohberg. It will be Prosecution Exhibit 687.
Also, the next document was commented upon by Hohberg and is signed by the defendant Hohberg. It is 1037, which will be Prosecution Exhibit 688.
The next document is the document that the Defense have asked for, which is the contract granting RM 30,000,000, a loan of RM 30,000,000 from the Reinhardt Fund. This is 3722, and it will be Prosecution Exhibit 689.
The next document is an affidavit by Georg Loerner that was taken quite a long time before the WVHA case was organized or even planned. It was taken in Oberursel. It is 4513, and I'll number it 690.
DR. HAENSEL: I want to object to this document. The document was taken a long time before the defendant Loerner was examined here in the witness stand. The document at the time was already in existence, and during the examination of 27 May of this year when Georg Loerner was examined it was put to him.
That is page 1753 of the German record. One part of the document was read, and the question by the Prosecution read, "Loerner stated -- and I am reading from an affidavit by Georg Loerner of 7 December 1945, Paragraph 10." Then Paragraph 10 was read, and Loerner commented on this document. This indicates that the document was already in existence at the time. However, I have objections to the fact that this affidavit is now presented as rebuttal evidence, while it has already been presented in part, and at the time it could also have been used in other points.
That is the formal factor. Factually, the affidavit does not seem to contain anything now which is of importance. It is one of the affidavits which in short paragraphs sums up certain things which have not originated with the defendant himself but which are the result of his pre-trial interrogation, and this pre-trial interrogation in the form of a report by Goerg Loerner has already been presented, and it is located in Document Book 18.
I believe, therefore, that materially this document does not contribute anything new. However, if it is presented I would have to ask Georg Loerner about the individual points, and I would like to object formally to the fact that the affidavit which the prosecution had available at the time is only being submitted now that the examination of Georg Loerner has been completed on the witness stand.
MR. ROBBINS: I should first like to answer the first point that Dr. Haensel made, that is that the affidavit was in our possession at the time. It does appear from the transcript when I was crossexamining the Defendant Pohl that I read to him one paragraph from the affidavit. However, I was not reading from the affidavit itself but I was reading from the transcript of an interrogation, or a prior interrogation of Pohl. The affidavit itself has come into our possession only within the last two or three weeks. This one paragraph appeared in an interrogation of Pohl, in the transcript of an interrogation of Pohl. In other words, I think it was Colonel Amen who interrogated Pohl shortly after he was captured, and he said to him, "Georg Loerner says so and so in his affidavit. What do you say to that?" I was reading from the interrogation-transcript of Pohl's interrogation, and it was only a short paragraph that was contained in that interrogation. We knew, as that shows, of the existence of the affidavit, and we have been trying ever since the trial started to obtain it, and it was only within the last week or two that we did obtain it. I can show Defense Counsel a number of cables that we sent to Mr. Justice Jackson and to the Library of Congress trying to find the original affidavit, to Colonel Amen himself, and the fact is that we have only obtained it very recently.
The second point, that it is not strictly rebuttal evidence, I believe is not well taken because in the affidavit in the 12th paragraph, for instance, he says that, "Dr. Schenk, the food inspector, was under my orders, "the proposition that Loerner denied throughout his testimony. Similarly in Paragraph 11 he says.
"Clothing of killed and deceased prisoners was used by Amtsgruppe B, and two hundred carloads arrived from Lublin in Auschwitz."
THE PRESIDENT: In view of the fact that the witness was questioned about this affidavit and was read part of it, it will be received so that we have the whole instrument in the record.
MR. ROBBINS: The next document, I do not have the original here in Court so I will just reserve Exhibit 691 for Document No. 4498-A and B, and will offer those as soon as I can get the original. The document room hasn't produced the exhibit.
DR. SEIDL: Dr. Seidl for the Defendant, Oswald Pohl.
Your Honor, according to the contents of the document book which has been handed to us, the Statement of Hoess is not an affidavit, but it is a statement which has not been sworn to, and I, therefore, at this time object to the admission of this document as an independent means of evidence.
DR. MAAS: Dr. Maas for Defendant Hohberg.
Your Honor, I agree with the statements of my colleague, Dr. Seidl, and I would also like to point out that this document refers to a man who will probably have to defend himself in a later trial. If the document is admitted in evidence here, then the Court later on will not have the possibility to refute the document for formal reasons. That is why I agree with the request of Dr. Seidl, and for formal reasons I request that this document should not be admitted. It is not an affidavit which has been given in the proscribed form. The document has not been provided with any date, nor can it be seen whether the author of the document, or the person who deposes in this document, was sworn in when they signed it.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, Part B, as the document shows, was a statement executed by Rudolf Hoess in the presence of the member of the Chief Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland, the District Investigating Judge upon the motion of Prosecuting Attorney of the Supreme National Tribunal, and it states that it was made on the 11th of January, 1947, in Cracow, and that it was taken pursuant to Article 81 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Poland.
THE PRESIDENT: Where are you reading?
MR. ROBBINS: From Part A, your Honor.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: The first paragraph.
MR. ROBBINS: Part A describes how Part B was executed.
DR. SEIDL: Your Honor, in the document book which has been handed to us, only Part B has been included. However, Part A is completely lacking. It is impossible for us to determine whether Part A fulfills the prerequisites which have to be given if the document is to be admitted in evidence and if it is to be admitted as an affidavit. I therefore maintain my objection.
MR. ROBBINS: I apologize to Dr. Seidl. I thought Part A was included in the German document book, and I will make certain that he obtains it.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Part A show it was a sworn statement?
MR. ROBBINS: No, it does not, your Honor. It simply states it was taken before Judge Sand pursuant to the Code of Criminal Procedure of Poland, and that the suspect testified in the German language, understandable to him, and signed the statement.
THE PRESIDENT: He did everything except verify it by oath.
MR. ROBBINS: That is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: The defense objection to this exhibit will be sustained.
MR. ROBBINS: I will cancel Exhibit 691. The next document is an affidavit of Albert Thoms, which is Exhibit 3951-PS, and before Dr. Seidl makes an objection I would like to state that although this affidavit does not appear to be sworn to on its fact, that Thoms was called as a witness in the I.M.T. and swore to the affidavit to open court during the course of the I.M.T. We have tried to get this witness to Nurnberg but we have been unable to locate him.
DR. SEIDL: Dr. Seidl for the Defendant, Oswald Pohl.
I object to the presentation of this document, NO-3951-PS, because it has not been sworn to. If the Prosecution places such a great value on the testimony of that witness, then they only have to submit an extract of the transcript of the I. M. T.
MR. ROBBINS: I have an extract from the I. M. T. record before me. It is Page 9685. Shall I read it, the part where he affirms this affidavit?
THE PRESIDENT: No, we assume that you have it, but it ought to appear somewhere in the record that he did affirm it under oath. Is this a copy from the I. M. T. record?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, your Honor. This was U. S. A. Exhibit 852. Well, the colloquy between Mr. Dodds of the American prosecution and the witness is very short. Perhaps it world be best to have it appear in the transcript. Mr. Dodds asked Mr. Thoms:
"Q. You executed a statement on the 8th of May, 1946?
"A. Yes.
"Q. And you signed it?
"A. Yes.
"Q. And everything in it was true?
"A. Yes.
"Q. And it is true now, of course?
"A. Yes.
"Q. I wish you would just look at it there for the purposes of certainty and identify it now. Is that the statement you signed, Mr. Thoms?
"A. Yes.
"Q. All right. Now, I have one or two questions to ask you about it.
"MR. DUDDS: I wish to offer it.
"THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit U. S. A. 852."
"THE PRESIDENT: What is the page of the I. M. T. records?
MR. ROBBINS: 9685.
DR. SEIDL: Dr. Seidl for the Defendant, Oswald Pohl.
Your Honor, I am not able to tell from memory just what the Witness Thoms testified before the I. M. T. during his examination there. However, I am not able to determine what he said. I cannot say whether the document which the Prosecution wants to present now is identical with the one which was submitted to the Witness Thoms before the I. M. T. in the course of his examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Was the document which was shown to the witness ream into the record there?
MR. ROBBINS: I can't say that, your Honor. This is a copy of the exhibit. That is part of the record of the I. M. T. It is the same date.
THE PRESIDENT: To the exhibit in its present form the objection of the Defense will be sustained.
MR. ROBBINS: May I then ask the Tribunal if it would take judicial notice of U. S. A. Exhibit 852 as it stands in the record of the International Military Tribunal?
THE PRESIDENT: We, of course, are obliged to take judicial notice of that record. If you will show it to us we will then take judicial notice of it.
MR. ROBBINS: May I reserve Exhibit 692 for a later offer of this document?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. ROBBINS: The next document which appears in the German document book is 4728-NO. This is an extract from an interrogation of the Defendant Oswald Pohl, and the point for which it is offered is the statement on the second page, the last answer, that Gluecks and Loerner, right on down to the last little clerk must have known what went on in the concentration camps and it is complete nonsense for him, referring to Kaltenbruner, to speak of just a handful of men.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Attorney Von Stakelberg for the Defendant Fanslau.
Your Honor, I object to the presentation of this document because it cannot be seen from it that this statement has been sworn to. If the document should be admitted, then I request that I can cross-examine the Defendant Oswald Pohl with regard to this one question.
THE PRESIDENT: This appears to be testimony taken. Is it taken on trial or what?
MR. ROBBINS: It was taken in a pre-trial interrogation.
THE PRESIDENT: It is an interrogation then. It isn't testimony.
MR. ROBBINS: No. In which the Defendant Pohl was testifying under oath. I am sorry that the extract that is in the document book doesn't show that Pohl was under oath. The original exhibit, however, does.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Your Honor, if the document is admitted in evidence then I request that I be granted the permission to cross-examine the Defendant Oswald Pohl.
MR. ROBBINS: I might recall for the Court that I read this part of the interrogation to the Witness pohl and at that time he said he couldn't remember whether or not he had made such a statement under oath, and Defense Counsel at that time asked the Prosecution to produce the transcript of the interrogation, and that is the purpose for which it is offered here now.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the original exhibit indicates that the statement was sworn to and therefore it will be admitted.