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?
The witness will be excused.
Dr. von Stakelberg, you will have Maier tomorrow, you think?
DR. VON STAKELBERG: I hope, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I hope so.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: It depends on whether the witness will arrive.
THE PRESIDENT: You have plenty of documents, Mr. Robbins?
MR. ROBBINS: All my documents are ready.
THE PRESIDENT: But they haven't been introduced?
MR. ROBBINS: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Were there still defense documents to be introduced?
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what I am afraid of.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Your Honor, I myself have three affidavits. One has been dispatched, but it hasn't been returned yet. The two other affidavits I have, however, are very brief affidavits, but they haven't been translated.
DR. HAENSEL: (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT GEORG LOERNER): I have one document book and a trial letter which have not been translated yet. The trial latter will arrive tomorrow. However the last document books have not been completed yet, as far as we have been informed so far.
DR. FROESCHMANN (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT MUMMENTHEY): I have two more document books. They have been completed as far as the translation is concerned and I would be able to present them tomorrow. I also have two supplements which are still being translated.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we'll take all the testimony we can tomorrow and if we are not able to finish all the documents, we will have to deal with it later, but not the next day. We plan to recess tomorrow night until the 16th of September and if all the documents are not admitted tomorrow, we'll have to take some of them on the 15th or 16th, but we want to get all that we can in tomorrow.
MR. ROBBINS: I ask you if it would be a good idea to convene at nine o'clock in the morning instead of 9:30 in order to get in a little more time.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that's all right, isn't it? Well, all right, we will convene at nine o'clock and adjourn at "X" hours. There is no guarantee as to when we will adjourn tomorrow night. We will adjourn new until nine o'clock tomorrow morning.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will adjourn until nine o'clock tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 4 September 1947 at 0900 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 4 September 1947, at 0900 hours, Justice Robert M. Toms, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal No. 2 Military Tribunal No. 2 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
MR. ROBBINS: If it please the Tribunal, I should like to continue with the presentation of rebuttal documents beginning with Book XXIX. I think there are about six documents in this book.
THE PRESIDENT: XXIX, did you say?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Mr. Robbins.
MR. ROBBINS: The first document is NO-3925 and it will be Prosecution Exhibit 670. These first three documents are offered to rebut the proposition of the defense that the SS enterprises -- or the industries under Amtsgruppe W are not SS industries. In the first document, Exhibit 670, Hohberg writes that the WHVA has a dual position performing Party and Reich functions, and he says "Within the Party sector, administrative matters are dealt with. Administrative matters include the supervision of the Economic Enterprises of the SS," and just below, page 3 of the original, he says that Office W-IV in supervising the inmates accomplishes a task of the Reich and in administering the enterprises in performs a task of the Party.
THE PRESIDENT: What paragraph is that, Mr. Robbins?
MR. ROBBINS: That is just immediately below page 3 on the second of the English copy -- see in parentheses on page 3 of the original.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that the first paragraph?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, Your Honor. I have just read from both the paragraphs above the parentheses and just under the parentheses and on the last page of that document he say that all concerns of the Party are con cerns of the community and that the legal sphere of the party centers in an autonomous law which originally is not dereved from the State.
That is just below page 5 of the original.
The document I have just referred to is NO-3925 and it is Exhibit 697. I made a mistake in numbering.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the number?
MR. ROBBINS: Exhibit 697.
The next document, NO-3798, will be Exhibit 698, This is a letter signed by Pohl to the Reich Commissioner for Price Control. On the first page, fourth paragraph, he states that the Fuehrer Prinzip which is strictly handled with within the SS has also been applied in the SS Enterprises, and on the next page, first full paragraph, he says "The liaison between the parent corporation and the subsidiary is so close that as regards economy, on cannot regard it operation of independent enterprises, but in some way branch departments of the parent corporation. In the last sentence of the last paragraph he says, "To the person not concerned; it might appear as if all these enterprises were not connected with one another, However, that is not the case."
DR. GAWLIK: (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT DR. VOLK AND BOBERMIN): If the Tribunal please, we have just had the translation, "Liaison between the Party and the subsidiary Company is so close," but in our copy it says. "The liaison between parent company and subsidiary is so close."
THE PRESIDENT: That is what it says in the English copy, in the English translation,
DR. GAWLIK: I see. I only wanted to draw attention to this mistake in the translation.
THE PRESIDENT: It is right in the document, anyway.
MR. ROBBINS: The next document, NO-1918, will be Exhibit 699, and this is the letter by Learner-- this is Georg Learner -- and initialed by Dr. Volk and it is to the Reich Minister of Justice concerning exem ption of certain SS industries from payment of court fees and expenses and it refers to the DAW and the Textile Manufacturing Company and the Experimental Station for Food, and in the fourth paragraph he says, " All of the employees of these three plants are prisoners, and, like the DEST, they are headed by SS officers as managers who are strictly firm to observe the instructions of the Reichfuehrer SS in their business affairs."
And the last sentence in that paragraph, "The Three plants mentioned therefore are actual establishments of the SS, like the DEST."
DR. GAWLIK: (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANTS VOLK AND BOBERMIN): I would be grateful if the prosecution could tell us what statement is to be rebutted by this document.
MR. ROBBINS: The testimony of Dr. Volk and, as I remember it, other of the defendants, the Defendant Pohl, for instance, who testified just a few days ago, that the industries under Amtsgruppe W are not SS enterprises.
The next document, 4161, will be Prosecution Exhibit 700. This is a letter of recommended promote on signed by Pohl and on the second page he is referring to Defendant Baier. He states in the second sentence in the second paragraph that Baier has furnished those who have attended his school with such a good theoretical and practical foundation that they are ready to take over the duties of SS Special Service Troops and the SS Death Head Units." The defendant Baier testified that they were not -- that the students in his school were not trained to become SS Death Head Officers, and Pohl's statement here is offered to rebut that testimony.
The next document, 4088, will be Exhibit 701, and it is offered to show the connection of the Defendant Georg Loerner with the establishment of the concentration camp Stutthof. Other documents have been offered to show the connection of four or five or six of the other defendants, and this document is offered to show the connection of the Defendant Georg Loerner.
THE PRESIDENT: Who signed it?
MR: ROBBINS: This is signed by the Defendant Georg Loerner, I believe will you let me see that document?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it's apparent from the first line of the document.
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, that is correct. It appears to be his initials at the bottom.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you claim by this.
MR. ROBBINS: That is shows the connection of one additional defendant with the operation of the concentration camp Stutthof, with the establishment of it.
The next document.-
THE PRESIDENT: Wait just a minute. What is the connection of the Institution of Aged People.
MR. ROBBINS: That was party of the property, as the Defendant Volk testified --that was purchased.
THE PRESIDENT: To be acquired for Stutthof.
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, Your Honor.
The next document, 4441, NO, will be Prosecution Exhibit 702. The Defendant Hohberg commented on this on the stand yesterday. The first line refers to the Chief of Staff W, Auditor Hohberg, and refers to a promise of increase in salary signed Dr. Volk and Dr. Wiener.
THE PRESIDENT: It is just to show that Hohberg was Chief of Staff W?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, Your Honor.
The next document, 3773-NO will be Prosecution Exhibit 703, a letter signed by Mummenthey to Staff W referring to the clearing found for prisoner allocation at various concentration camp works. This is offered to show that Staff--
THE PRESIDENT: Our document is in German, so, if you will explain it, it will help.
Judge Musmanno had noe in English.
MR. ROBBINS: It is offered to show that Staff W did in fact handle the clearing fund for the prisoner allocation. That was a proposition that was denied by the Defendant Baier that the so-called clearing fund for inmate labor was a part of Staff W. It is a letter signed by Mummenthey and addressed to Staff W.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: What dOes the 10% represent:
MR. ROBBINS: Beg Pardon?
JUDGE MUSMANNO: That does the 10% represent?
MR. ROBBINS: I don't know what the 10% is.
DR. FRITSCH (Attorney for the Defendant Baier): May it please the Tribunal unfortunately, I did not hear very well Mr. Robbins has said just now.
MR. ROBBINS: In the memorandum of unfinished business that was signed by Hohberg, it was stated that a clearing fund for the allocation of prison labor would be set up under Staff W. Then Defendant Baier testified that that was not a part of the work of Staff W and this document, which is dated 1944, is offered to prove that that was a function of Staff W.
DR. FRITSCH (Attorney for the Defendant Baier): May it please the court, I believe I can put in a correction here. Perhaps Mr. Robbins would be kind enough to show me the record there. As I remember it, Defendant Baier said that it had not been his personal duties. He simply passed it on to the person in charge of these things. The clearing fund in this list of Dr. Hohberg has been mentioned in these details, but, as I see it, when Baier was on the witness stand, he explained that from among the payments which were paid out to the inmates -- I am sorry, I must correct myself here -- from among these payments which were paid to the Reich, 10% was paid into a clearing fund in order to be used for damages or certain compensations. Unfortunately, at the moment, I do not nave the transcript of Baier's testimony here. If I had it, I am sure I could prove it.
MR. ROBBINS: Well, if it isn't disputed that this was a part of the functions of Staff W, I don't think that the document does any damage to the defense. My recollection is very clear that I asked Baier if this was not a part of the duties of Staff W and he said it was not.
DR. FRITSCH: I have no objection to the admission of this document. All I felt was that Judge Musmanno wanted to be enlightened about the 10%. That is why I made the explanation just now.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it's true that the industries could claim damages if prisoners were not furnished then according to the agreement. In fact, one industry did claim damages, because prisoners were not furnished during an epidemic.
DR. FRITSCH: That is quite correct, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The 10% is a reserve to cover such claims for damages, I think.
DR. FRITSCH: Well, perhaps, this is putting it too extensively. This clearing fund was to pay for insurances for all sorts of damages, and one of the companies believed I suppose that such damage which they had suffered by not obtaining sufficient inmates was to be paid by that clearing fund, but, as a matter of fact, that was turned down.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but it's to provide a fund for the payment of any claims for damages which could be proved.
DR. FRITSCH: Yes, certainly.
MR. ROBBINS: We come next then to Document Book XXX. I believe there are only five or six documents in this book.
The first document in Book XXX is 4243 and is a recommendation for the promotion of Gluecks and is forwarded by the WVHA and the first page is signed by the Defendant Pohl. The first line on that third page states that Gluecks has been Chief of Amtsgruppe D of the WVHA for two years and in this capacity he is in charge of all matters concerned with concentration camps.
It is to show that Gluecks of Amtsgruppe D was in charge of all matters of the concentration camps. I think that was a proposition that the Defendant Pohl denied at first. I think when he took the stand the second time he more or less agreed to it that the Chief of Amtsgruppe D in that capacity was in charge of all matters of concentration camps. You see, at first, he argued that Gluecks had two capacities and in his capacity as Chief of D he was only in charge of labor allocation and that under the RSHA he had certain other duties connected with the concentration camps. This statement is offered to prove that in the capacity as Chief of D he was in charge of all matters of the concentration camps.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Mr. Robbins, I notice here in the second paragraph on the last page that Pohl states that Gluecks had the direction, the military direction, of the 40,000 men who worked in the guard units of the concentration camps. Isn't that new? Have we had any proof to that effect before, that Gluecks had any supervision or control over the guard?
MR. ROBBINS: I believe that that is new, Your Honor.