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.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Your Honor, I also requested that in case this document was admitted I would be granted permission to call the Defendant Oswald Pohl for cross-examination. Has my request been approved? I would like to cross-examine him about that question.
THE PRESIDENT: When the time comes you may make your request over again.
MR. ROBBINS: The next two documents, 4117 I offer as Exhibit 694 and 4118 as Exhibit 695. These are offered simply to rebut the Defendant Pohl's statement that there was no coordination between the various main offices of the WVHA. This shows coordination between the RSHA and the WVHA.
The last document in this book, 3408, I offer as Exhibit 696. This, as the original exhibit shows, is the diary of Kremer on which the Defendant Pohl was cross-examined, and the entry for the 23rd of September, 1942, which appears at the bottom of the page, states that Pohl was present in Auschwitz on that date. Additional parts of the diary were read into the record at that time, and I am offering the entire diary into evidence, but I have not had the complete diary translated, Other parts of the translation appear in the transcript.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the instrument, Mr. Robbins?
MR. ROBBINS: This is a diary of a doctor at the concentration camp Auschwitz which was shown to the Defendant Pohl on his crossexamination.
THE PRESIDENT: Doctor who?
MR. ROBBINS: Kramer, K-r-a-m-e-r; Kremer, K-r-e-m-e-r, I intend to have additional pages of this document translated for the use of the Tribunal and for defense counsel also. The exhibit is complete in the form which it will be given to the Secretary-General. The transcript will show that I read the entry from the 23rd of September, 1942, to Pohl and also the previous day of the 22nd of September when a mass execution took place at Auschwitz.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Your Honor, with the permission of the Tribunal I would now like to call the Defendant Fanslau to the witness stand with regard to the question of the uniforms. The assistant of Mr. Robbins has arrived now.
DEFENDANT FANSLAU was recalled to the witness stand.
DIRECT EXAMINATION.
BY MR. VON STAKELBERG:
Q. Witness, I want to remind you that you are still under oath, and I ask you to testify accordingly.
A. Yes.
Q. Today you heard testimony of the Witness, Dr. Jollek. In the cross-examination he described in detail the uniforms of alleged SS men whom he alleged had committed the atrocities at Zclocow. Please tell me just what the uniforms of the supply battalion looked like or what the uniforms of the Division Viking looked like. First of all, what were the men wearing in general as head gear? Were they wearing a cap or steel helmet or service cap?
A. Either they were wearing the overseas cap as headgear the same way as it is done in the American Army or they were wearing the steel helmet without any insignia and they would wear a camouflage net over it.
Q. If it were a steel helmet was it a gray steel helmet?
A. The steel helmet itself was gray and it had a covering as a camouflage.
Q. Well, if a person looked at it from the outside did the steel helmet look gray or could you only see a camouflage net over it?
A. One could only see the camouflage. This was of a brown color and black, gray, light green, and the colors varied on it.
Q. That is to say one color was next to the other in certain wavy lines?
A. Yes. This was done as a camouflage measure. These were the camouflage colors.
Q. Therefore when you locked at it from the outside your men, the members of the Division Viking, did not wear gray steel helmets?
A. No.
Q. New we come to the little overseas caps. Just what did they look like, were they field caps?
A. Yes, they were field gray.
Q. What insignia were put on them?
A. They had the eagle with the swastika under it and below that they had the deathhead.
Q. You can recall that Dr. Jollek said today that the death head was up, above, is that correct? Was the death head below or above the eagle?
A. Well, the death head was below, in any case and above it there was the eagle. However, I don't know any more with one hundred percent certainty whether the eagle as we wore it on our service cap, was also on the overseas cap. I assume it but I can't state it with one hundred percent certainty.
THE PRESIDENT: That makes them even.
THE WITNESS: If, however, there was insignia on their cap, then the death head must have been below the eagle and the swastika.
Q. Witness, now I am coming to the uniform itself. What sort of a uniform did your men wear? If you look at it from the outside were these uniforms field gray?
A. Yes, the uniform, as such, was field gray and on the coat there was a camouflage blouse which was worn sometimes. There were also camouflage trousers. However, the camouflage trousers were not always worn. However, all of us were wearing the camouflaged blouses, because they were more comfortable in the heat. The officers also wore the camouflage blouse, instead of the uniform coat.
Q. Will you describe the colors of the uniform blouse?
A. It was exactly the same as the covering of the steel helmets.
Q. That is to say, yellow, green, brown.
A. Green, black, brown, gray, all of these colors which could be tuned into each other.
Q. Therefore, they were in wavy lines, one next to the other. Did your people wear SS insignia?
A. Before the Russian campaign these insignia had to be take off the uniforms. This was done for reasons of camouflage.
Q. Therefore, your people did not wear the SS insignia at all?
A. No.
Q. Therefore, if Dr. Jolle states with certainty today that he had seen the SS insignia and that he had recognized it with practically all people there -- I believe that is what he testified today -- then you can conclude from this that it must have been a different unit?
A. Then this could not have been the combat division, Viking.
Q. The witness also testified today that he met a high physician who wore some gold insignia on his shoulders. Apparently he was referring to a medical officer of general's rank. Did you see any such medical officer? Did you have any such officer of that status in the Division Viking?
A. No, we didn't have any medical officer of general's rank in our division.
Q. Witness, now I come to the point. The witness, Dr. Jollek has stated today that there was a medical officer who wore a gold insignia on his shoulders. What sort of an officer could this have been?
A. That could only have been a medical officer of general's rank in the Army.
Q. Therefore, he testified about the gold. Did medical officers of general's rank wear gold on the shoulder?
A. Yes, they wore gold with silver plaited on the shoulder. However, we did not have any officer with general's rank. These were gold plated.
Q. Therefore, a medical officer with a general's rank with gold insignia had to come from a different unit?
A. Yes, naturally. However, I would like to mention in this connection that he spoke about the establishment of a field hospital. Therefore this must have been a field hospital or an institution of the corps or army, because we ourselves, whenever we advanced, had to turn over our wounded to the rear echelon.
Q. You didn't have your own field hospital in the Division Viking?
A. We had advanced dressing stations, main dressing stations. However, when we advanced we turned these over to the hospital units which followed up behind us. They belonged to the corps or army. They they would have the stations there for a more extended period of time.
Q. The witness, Dr. Jollek, has also stated today that a food column or some food vehicle had unloaded food at the hospital and later on it was again taken away by other trucks. Did the food office of the Division Viking have a place of issuing rations at Zclotzow?
A. No, the food office was not stationed in Zclotzow at all.
Q. From the previous testimony that also becomes evident, It was always said that the food office passed through the city and, even if it made a stop there, however, no rations were issued, and it has not been alleged that any were issued up to now.
A. No, no rations were issued.
Q. You therefore can confirm from the description of the witness, Dr. Jollek that the persons whom he has mentioned could not have been members of the supply battalion of the Division Viking?
A. I cannot say with 100% certainty, I can only tell you about it as I have described it before from the uniforms, because I myself only passed through Zlotzow.
Q. No, I did not mean that Just now. From the description of Dr. Jollek and the precise description of the uniforms, you can draw the conclusion that these people were not members of the Division Viking?
A. Yes.
Q. That's enough for the question.
A. However, you asked me if the members -
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Very well, that is enough.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Witness, would the members of the Viking wear a certain insignia? Would they wear a certain stripe on their sleeves?
A. Yes, in the home area, in the home operational area.
Q. You have just testified that the SS insignia was removed from the uniforms during the Russian campaign.
A. Yes, of course, I can only state for the time when I was with the unit.
Q. Before that campaign in the west were these SS insignia again put on the uniforms?
A. The campaign in the west took place before the campaign in Russia.
Q. I mean, when advance divisions were moved west in order to combat the allied attack was the insignia again worn at that time or do you claim that all the SS units were in combat without SS insignia?
A. I can't testify as to that. I can only say it from the time from June to September, including September, 1941.
Q. You have testified that the camouflage covering and camouflage blouses were worn by all members of the Viking division at all times. Were there insignia of rank on these camouflage blouses?
A. On these camouflage blouses the only insignia which was worn was on the left upper sleeve, were stripes. As far as I am still able to recall it, noncommissioned officers would wear one stripe and lieutenants and 1st lieutenants and captains could wear two stripes, company grade officers, that is to say, and field grade officers would wear three stripes.
They were just as big as an index finger. They were just as long and they were worn crossways on the upper sleeve.
Q. And you also testified that these camouflage blouses were also worn by troops who were not directly engaged in combat, that is to say, these camouflage jackets, where it was very difficult to differentiate between commissioned officers, noncommissioned officers, and other ranks, these jackets were also worn by troop units who did not fight directly at the front, for example, by the supply battalion?
A. They were also worn by the supply battalion. However, I cannot say either for 18,000 to 20,000 men, whether one company or whether of 100 or 200 men 5 or 10 of them did not wear the camouflage jackets for one or two days.
Q Could we assume that the camouflage jacket which is very uncomfortable in itself, because it does not have any pockets and because the material is not very fine, that the troops should only wear it prior to combat or during combat?
A On the contrary, we all liked to wear these jackets very much, because they were very light and loose and they uniform blouse was much too warm for us.
Q The question of the death head has also been raised here. Can you describe to us how far the death head, which the SS wears, differs from death head or the armored units? Isn't it correct that the SS death Head is also provided with cross bones below the death head?
AAfter so many years have passed, I am unable to remember these intricacies in detail. I really cannot testify to that under oath.
Q Isn't it correct that the members of the armored units would wear a very short uniform blouse? These were also the same cut as the field jacket, the European Theatre Jacket, which is worn by members of the United States forces. However, members of the Army and especially the infantry would wear a long blouse.
A Yes, the armored troops and the armored units of the army wore the same cut of uniform. This cut differed from the uniform, because the other uniforms had a longer blouse and thus they differed from the remaining branches of the army.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, is this the sign, the insignia of the Viking Division? (Sowing witness a drawing.)
A Yes, that is the sun wheel
Q With the swastika and the curved edges?
A Could you please repeat the question once more.
Q I just want the record to show that it is a swastika with curved edges.
A Well, I only know that in general on the vehicles the so-called sun wheel was put there.
That was a tactical insigna of the Division Viking.
Q And this appeared on the trucks of the supply column of the Viking Division, did it not?
A Yes, it was on the vehicles of the entire division.
Q Witness, you don't claim, do you, that the Viking Division was not in Zclotzow in the first days of July, 1941?
A I have stated myself that I passed through Zclotzow. However, I cannot say any more today -- it is possible for me to say today what battalion or what regiments just happened to be at Zclotzow or around Zclotzow during this time. With a division of 18,000 to 20,000 men in such an area, it is possible to say it in detail.
MR. ROBBINS: I have no further questions.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. VON STAKELBERG (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT FANSLAU):
Q Witness, you have stated that the stripes on the sleeves of the Division Viking was only worn in the home operational area?
A Yes.
Q Would you please explain to us what the home operational area means. Let us put it differently. Was it worn in combat operations outside of Germany?
A No.
Q What do you mean by home operational area?"
A We say "home operational area" I mean the combat area within the German Reich, that is, the area of the German Reich, as it was before the war. However, that is a conception which was well known to every soldier in Germany.
Q Therefore, at Zclotzow and during combat operations "outside of Germany this stripe was not worn?
A No
THE PRESIDENT: Any other questions?