I would like to mention, on the side, that I do not believe Horst Klein could be accused of participation in the crimes in Wewelsburg, even if he knew of them because, as has been shown, he had no direct connection with them in any sense, because he had no power to issue directives or orders to either the Construction management or the camp, and he could do nothing to prevent the crimes.
I must also raise the question whether he could not learn of these crimes through the reports which from time to time he had to submit to Pohl, and whether he thereby participated in the crimes. I would like to add here that on page 6299 of the record there is a mistake. It should read correctly "The construction management". And that is on page 2634 of the German record.
The report, Exhibit 455, Document 547, Document Book 17 of the Prosecution, contains for any unprejudiced viewer no word by which it could be proved that Klein had knowledge of the crimes. They contain with regard to Wewelsburg, only bare facts - only the fact that inmates were employed and the extent of such employment. Furthermore, Klein did not actually know these facts first-hand but had learned them from copies of reports which the Construction managements sent to Himmler, and or the Main Office Personal Staff of the Reichsfuehrer SS. Here I refer also, besides Klein's own testimony, to the English Record 6168 - especially also to the statement of Klein's secretary, the witness Steuer. (Horst Klein Exhibit 6, page 12, English Document Book Horst Klein.) Could it now be said, however, that Klein had made himself an accessory to these atrocities which were unknown to him, by passing on these reports to Pohl?
He who seeks justice must deny this. The reports contain nothing that even remotely resembles a consent to, or a demand for the commission of crimes. Before I go on from this point may I remind the Court that, according to the exact exposition of the defendant, the reports have not been presented to the Court in the correct sequence of the pages.
In bringing up the last form of participation according to Article II, paragraph 2, of the Control Council Law No. 10, it must be clear that the defendant did not participate either in these crimes through consent. He who is ignorant of something cannot consent to it. Furthermore, the attitude of the defendant, for instance, concerning racial persecution, is just what proves that he is not a man who would have condoned crimes. In the case of racial persecution he stood up for racially persecuted people, thereby exposing himself to danger.
I can justly say, at the end of this plea, that the defendant Klein has not involved himself, in regard to employment of inmates, in any participation in crimes.
The prosecution has attempted to blame Klein for being involved in the acquisition of the Lawkowicz property, or at least a part of it. In this respect it must be remembered that during the activity of the defendant nor through his efforts, no such purchase by the SS has been effected. Further to be remembered is that this property had been confiscated by the competent Reich agency a long time before the defendant worked on this case, and this according to the regulation which was legally binding for all citizens, according to which the property of men who were German citizens was to be confiscated if they should work against the German Reich in a foreign country.
And here I want to include something. The documents submitted in Document Book 33, by the Prosecution - do not prove anything against the correctness of these statements made by defendants. The documents, which only originated from the year 1941, do not refer to the seizure, but only to the final confiscation. They prove that this confiscation actually was not effected on behalf of the SS but exclusively on behalf of the German Reich. In particular, the last document No. 4942, Exhibit 735, shows that the Lawkowicz property was not utilized at all, but that it was in its entire extent received on behalf of the German Reich, which was represented by the German Minister of Finance and he again represented by the senior Finance president.
I continue with my original text: The defendant could not be convicted on this point for the further reason that because according to the judgement pronounced by the International Military Tribunal the plundering of public and personal property, (with the exception of Jewish persecutees), can only be carried out against those countries and their citizens on whose behalf the indictment for conducting a war of aggression was made. That, however, are only those countries which were attacked by the German Armies after 1 September 1939, i.e., Poland, and those countries gradually dragged into the war. The plundering of public and private property has been defined as a war crime and can therefore, only be charged in connection with the war of aggression. This also shown in the exact wording of Article II, paragraph 1b, of the Control Council Law No. 10. The whole connection of this regulation points out that such an offense shall only be punished in connection with an act of war as a war crime. It results therefrom that membership in a criminal organization is only punishable after 1 September 1939, so that - in other words - that all members in such an organization are presumed to have acted in good faith with regard to matters that happened before that date. Czechoslovakia, however, became part of the German Reich before 1 September 1939.
Now I want to add something else. The prosecution has further tried to establish a connection between Klein and the libelous antiBolshevist pamphlet "The Sub-Human" (Das Unter-meusch), published by the Nordland Publishing Co. However, such connection is not proven. It is true that Klein has been their legal adviser, and prokurist for several months at the end of 1939 and the beginning of 1940. But Klein had no connections with the activities of publication or the material published by the Nordland Publishing Co. "The Sub-Human Being" appeared sometime after the beginning of the campaign in Russia, and Klein did no longer work for a longtime already with the Nordland Publishing Company.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Dr. Bergold, will you have these extemporaneous remarks of yours introduced into the final written speech which will be submitted to us?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, your Honor.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Very well.
DR. BERGOLD: I had burned it in for translation but this page has gotten lost. Now I shall read the end of my deliberation whether the defendant Klein could be found guilty of a war crime, or a crime against humanity. I am of the opinion that this can not even be considered, and, therefore, request that the defendant be found not guilty on indictment counts 2 and 3. As for Count 4 of the charge, it is necessary first to make a few legal expositions. My learned friend and colleague, Dr. Haensel, submitted a trial brief to the Tribunal. In this brief he seeks to find, with very much keenness of the mind, and by use of devious routes, a solution to the question of what kind this knowledge ought to be sufficient for a conviction according to Article II, 1d of Control Council Law 10. He enlarged repeatedly upon the question whether this decree is to be interpreted according to the law of the land, or according to international law. He, who was one of those, like Laokoon, thrust the spear against the Trojan Horse of conspiracy, without having been devoured by the serpents, he himself finally leads, like one of the deceived inhabitants of Troy, by "a long rope" this wooden freak Horse of conspiracy back through the razed gate of the fortress, in the hope of hearing out of its hollow belly the solution of the ringing question.
I take the liberty to be of an opinion different in principle from that of my learned colleague. One should as a jurist so I was always taught by my old father, first and always go the simplest way, and interpret the law from within the law. Control Council Law No. 10, Article II, 1 d, was supplemented by the judgment of the IMT, which I wish to regard as an authentic interpretation. This judgment is simple and clear. It says literally: "The Tribunal declares as criminal in the sense of the statute that group of persons which was composed of such who were officially admitted to the SS, who became, or remained members of the organization, and had knowledge that they were used for the commission of acts declared criminal by Article VI of the Statute, or, who as members of the organization were involved in the commission of such crimes." If one is to interpret these words with the aid of socalled common sense, one needs, I believe, no further refection whatsoever about the rules of interpretation of these words. They speak for themselves, as is to be expected of the High International Tribunal. They word "who" had knowledge that they were used for the commission of acts declared criminal by Article VI of the Statute" comprise in an absolutely clear definition two kinds of knowledge, namely, first, the knowledge that such acts were committed at all, and, secondly, the knowledge that the members of the organization are used for the commitment of such kind of criminal action. Regarding the first mentioned kind of knowledge nothing is to be said. It is simple and self-evident. Everybody knows what constitutes knowledge of criminal acts. It is simply the apperception of facts. But the second knowledge in my opinion, is also clear. Naturally, it can not, to give first a negative definition, mean the knowledge that at some time members of the SS were by any one of the lower, or intermediate command ing organs of the SS, used for criminal acts.
For the fact that just any organ of an association like the SS at sometime or other without peruission, and contrary to the will of the proper authority make subordinates commit criminal acts, cannot be held against all members of such an organization. Such a standpoint would be so monstrous that nobody could call it justice any longer. But from this it results positively that the knowledge which the member of the SS must have, is the knowledge that the organization as ****** that is, the highest command, uses the members intentionally for the commitment of criminal acts. Thereby, it becomes apparent that simple knowledge of criminal acts is not sufficient to presume a criminal knowledge of the individual member of the SS. It seems to me that by stipulating such two-fold knowledge, one can decide much simpler and clearer when such a criminal knowledge prevails. Such an interpretation suffices for the special facts prevailing according to the judgment of the IMT Required are then no longer the learned expositions made by my colleague Haensel. In the knowledge that the members of the SS were intentionally used by their high command to perpetrate crimes, lies the guilt of the single individual, if he, in spite of such knowledge of intentional use for crimes, becomes or remains a member of the organization for the purpose of supporting cooperation.
The verdict of the Military Tribunal No.1 in the Poppendick Case seems to concur with my conclusions; for in this case the Tribunal ascertained repeatedly regarding the individual crimes of the several experiments that Poppendick had knowledge of the order by the highest command for the criminal experiments, and, the use of the SS for its execution. The Tribunal could, therefore, impute that he recognized from the multitude of the experiments the planned use of the SS. It, therefore, required no longer a special proof of planning. It is immediately obvious that based on this opinion, naturally, it is not sufficient to know that other organizations committed criminal acts.
It is also obvious that an individual defendant may furthermore defend himself against the crime that he became a member by stating that he did so in the interest of opposing the National Socialist regime, and to spy on its doings. Concerning the question who has the burden of proving the existence of such two-fold knowledge, as ascertained by me, I fully agree with my colleague Haensel, that the burden of proof of this aspect lies entirely with the Prosecution. I have said as much already in my opening statement.
It is clear that in this case one can **** immediately derive the supposition of such knowledge from the duration of membership, because it is always first necessary to ascertain what function the individual member of the SS had, and, especially, if he was in a position - in his function - acquire knowledge about the planned action of the high command. However, I believe to be able to demonstrate without further discussing the burden of proof, that the defendant Hans Klein possessed none of the two-fold knowledge necessary for his conviction. To find this it is only necessary to examine without prejudice the evidence sofar submitted. May prejudice arise from sentiments caused by hearing this trial, or by assimilating the manifold statements of propaganda against the German people. The statements of the witness Mrs, von Rupphert in her examination before this Tribunal, of Mrs. Olly Oldach (Klein's Exhibit No. 17) of Miss Sophie Wolff (Klein's Exhibit No. 18), of Mrs. Eva Stahl (Klein's Exhibit No. 19), of Dr. Boeltzig (Klein's Exhibit No. 20), of Mrs. Thea Dresser (Klein's Exhibit No. 21), as well as of the defendant himself, prove that Klein up to the outbreak of the war certainly had no idea that the SS was used for common criminal acts.
But for the time after 1 September 1939, the above mentioned witnesses have confirmed that Klein had no knowledge of criminal acts. Miss Oldach states on page 41 of the English Document Book, that the defendant Horst Klein had no knowledge whatsoever of the atrocities committed in the concentration camps, and that he was of the opinion that everything was entirely correct there.
Miss Wolff, too, states on page 48 of the English Document Book, Horst Klein, that Klein had no idea of the conditions in the concentration camps. On page 53 of the English Document Book Horst Klein, Mr. Stahl states that Klein was under the illusion that the measures condemned by him were to be traced to the initiative of some men designated by him as swine, and that they all were only transgressions of individuals. On page 54 of the English Document Book Horst Klein, she expresses her conviction that Klein had no idea about the real activity, and the aims of the highest SS authority. This is a very significant statement. Mrs. Dresser, finally, can confirm that Klein quite obviously was not informed about the deportation of Jews, and of the concentration camp outrages; that he could not inform even his best friends, whose political conviction he shared, about the concentration camps, and, that he was unable even to obtain knowledge about the existence of the Ghetto of Theresianstadt. But these are the crimes which alone have taken place in the wider field of vision of the defendant Klein. He himself testified to you that he had not the slightest notion of all these things. That is what I have already repeatedly explained in the course of this speech.
If your Honor please, I would like to correct another mistake in the English record on page 6154 in which appears the mistake reading as follows: "I never heard that Jews were arrested differently".
However, it should read, "I never heard that Jews had been arrested en masse." That is on Page 6100 of the German transcript.
The witness von Rouppert has testified that the Defendant Klein was not informed of the true nature of the deportation of the Jews, that he had inquired upon request of Herr Dr. Bresser, a man who had been sentenced to death by the People's Court, and that he was merely told that the Jews were only interned for the duration of the war, since there was the danger of espionage because of their close relations with foreign countries, and it was impossible to supervise all of them individually. In many belligerent countries enemy aliens have been interned, even certain categories of citizens of the belligerent countries themselves were interned because it was supposed they could constitute a danger because of their close connections with enemy countries. Therefore it cannot be a crime if such people are interned during the war.
The witness von Rouppert finally even testified unmistakably that Klein could not get any information, even when he inquired upon request of Dr. Bresser as to the high death rate of the interned Jews which had become known by rumors, that he even endangered himself by these inquiries, because the information agency reproached him with spreading false enemy propaganda. Kindly recall, your Honors, the words of the witness von Rouppert that she talked further about it with her brother, that the information he had received must be true. This is testified by the same witness who herself had been committed to a concentration camp because of her hostile attitude towards the Third Reich. That is what the defendant himself confirmed by oath on the stand.
Isn't one obliged to believe the defendant after all this testimony, when he assures us that he was not aware of all the atrocities which the SS leaders and with them the SS are said to have committed? He was not aware of the criminal experiments. He did not know the conditions in the concentration camps. He was not informed of the atrocities which were performed on Jews. He had not heard either of what crimes had been committed abroad, May I recall that the International Military Tribunal even conceded to the defendant Fritzsche, a man who held the top position of the German news service, that he was not aware of the monstrous crimes in the East. How much less could the defendant Klein, whose lace of information in other things, has been confirmed by testimonies, have been aware of all this?
He heard, it is true, that the Gestapo applied detestable methods. This has, however, nothing to do with the SS. The Gestapo was in fact classified by the IMT as a separate organization. Klein himself testified here that he had the conviction that the Gestapo had nothing to do with the General SS as such.
I do not want to enlarge upon the secrecy which the other colleagues discussed. There was much left to be said here in detail. I am, however, of the opinion that what was advanced will be sufficient to make clear what I mean.
May I be allowed to state that Klein did not even have the first of the two categories of knowledge, namely, the knowledge of the criminal acts of the SS. Then, of course, he had knowledge all the less that they should systematically be used by the supreme leaders for the commitment of crimes.
By interrogation on the stand I induced Klein to describe to you impressively what Klein thought of Himmler. He considered him, whom he never got to know personally in connection with a crime, as an idealist who demanded loyalty, decency, bravery and similar virtues from the SSmen, as described by General Wolff.
On the occasion he met him he recognized him as a man who was susceptible to a frank and sincere word, who let himself be set to rights when the incorrectness of an opinion or of a plan was pointed out to him.
I request, your Honors, not to say that these are vague phrases of the defendant in which nobody can have faith. Please do not confound your subsequent knowledge with what the defendant could ascertain at that time. At the witness von Rouppert deposed, Klein, for example, learned in 1938 that Himmler stormed with indignation at the pogrom against the Jews in November 1938. Couldn't he believe such a man capable of good?
Your Honors, I know only too well that abroad one has no faith in the assertions of the Germans that they were not aware of the true character of Himmler. However, have you the right to share in good faith this general point of view after having learned from the witness von Rouppert here in this trial that the same Dr. Bresser who was a strict and inexorable opponent of the party, the same Dr. Bresser who was executed because of his antagonism, that this same Dr. Bresser took it for a ray of hope when Himmler, the allegedly notorious Himmler, was appointed in 1943 as German Minister of the Interior? That was shortly before the date when Bresser was arrested. It was at a time when Himmler had already enacted his terrible massacres of Jews.
It was at a time when he filled millions of people to concentration camps through the Gestapo. It was after the time when through the SD he had in the East, made the most horrible offerings of blood to the Moloch of a false idea. In spite of all this, such an obvious enemy of the party, such a courageous man as Dr. Bresser, who died for his fight against the party by the hands of the hangman, had faith in Himmler and hoped that Himmler would now carry out an elimination of all criminal elements from the party. This is a scene which could not be painted more horribly by any great poet, for instance Shakespeare, if he wanted to describe the misled confidence of a victim in his executioners. Who in the world has the right to stand up after this and impute in good faith and without any reasonable doubt, that everyone in Germany must have been able to recognize what type of man Himmler was? Who would do this, would indeed blindfold justice with the terrible bandage of being unwilling to know? No, what has to be conceded to the friend of the defendant as lack of knowledge, according to the testimony of the witness, must also be conceded to the defendant who had heard nothing of all these atrocities. He had much less opportunity to learn the truth than the opponent of the Third Reich, Dr. Bresser. For he was an SS-man, towards whom every anti-Fascist kept silence as a matter of course.
Therefore, I think I can state that I have proved that Klein by no means had the second required category of knowledge, namely that the organization of the SS was systematically used by its supreme leaders for the commitment of crimes, which are punishable according to Article VI of the Statute.
Even if, however, one should not share my opinion that I have already proved the lack of knowledge, attention must be paid to the fact that it would properly be the task of the Prosecution to produce evidence of such knowledge. It may claim that it can produce prima facie evidence. If, however, like in this case, such important facts have been proved concerning the Defendant's lack of knowledge, prima facie evidence can no longer be sufficient for the Prosecution, should justice make sure. Then it must prove positively and in detail the knowledge of the defendant. Any reasonable doubt that the Defendant, Horst Klein, had the knowledge as required by the IMT, must be weighed in his favor. He therefore must, as I herewith request, also be found not guilty with regard to count 4.
Before I close, your Honors, I should like briefly to sketch once more the character of the defendant. No personal misdeeds of his have been reported here. The statements of the witnesses, Wolff, Oldach, Stahl, Boeltzig and von Rouppert depict him as a man who is frank and honorable and who has a pronounced feeling for justice. He is a man whose heart bleeds for everyone who is persecuted and who had the wonderful courage to help those persecuted by interfering in person.
Read, I beg you, the statement of the witness Tusch, a priest, of the man whose highest authority sold his church to the SS and who as a Catholic clergyman really had no reason to speak well of an SS-man as such. He depicts Klein as a man who was always loyal and who cannot be charged with the arrogance of the Party, and the extravagances of the SS.
This man was not a blind follower of the Party. He joined the Party in his youth when he was certainly not mature enough to form correct political opinion.
He was at the age when optimism sways and when one is prepared to believe the best of anyone.
In peacetime his activity was of only short duration. In wartime, however, he could no longer leave the Party, although inwardly he had turned away from the Party and belonged whole-heartedly to the circle of opposition of which his father was the center and a number of whose members paid for their attitude with their lives, among them his own brother-in-law. He had to live to see his own sister put in a concentration camp, one of the same concentration camps with reference to which he is to be made responsible today. He fought for his sister and it has become evident from his own statement and that of his sister that he was suspected by the Party and the Gestapo just as much as his father.
It is indeed only by special circumstances that he himself was not ground between the milestones of the Gestapo. You have heard that he used every means to avoid being drafted into the Waffen-SS, that even in the early stages of the war he tried to resign from his offices generally by service in the armed forces because he felt increasingly ill at ease in the Party.
This man is therefore not the type that the Prosecution tries to depict him. He does belong to this category of men and I believe that he is not unworthy of acquittal.
THE PRESIDENT: That concludes the arguments of Defense Counsel. If there is nothing more today, the Tribunal will recess until nine-thirty Monday morning in Courtroom No. 1 Dr. Hoffmann?
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, my colleague, Dr. Gawlik, and I, have been to Room 57 in order to get an appointment with out clients. However, that room is locked up and we are afraid now that without requesting once more the assistance of the President of this Tribunal, because of administrative difficulties we will be unable to talk to our clients.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I was assured by the Marshal's Office that the room would be open from one-thirty until four. Of course, it is only twelve-thirty.
DR. HOFFMANN: Yes, your Honor, but up to now it was the custom that beforehand an appointment would be made, and it is impossible for us to make this previous appointment. However, I assume that maybe the defendants will all be taken over to that room. It is quite possible.
DR. SEIDL: Your Honor, I believe that I can give some information in this instance. I was assured half an hour ago that all the defendants will be taken over this afternoon, and that it will not be necessary to make a special appointment with them.
THE PRESIDENT: Much ado about nothing. We will recess until Monday morning at nine-thirty in Courtroom No. 1.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until ninethirty Monday morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 22 September 1947, at 0930 hours).
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Oswald Pohl, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 22 September 1947, 0930 hours, Judge Toms presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Take your seats, please.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal No. II. Military Tribunal No. II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Marshal close the door of the courtroom, please. Close the doors.
The Tribunal is ready to hear the statements of the defendants as provided by the ordinance at this time.
DEFENDANT OSWALD POHL: Mr. President, Your Honors:
When with the end of the first World War the German people laid down its arms, it did so in the belief in the fourteen points of your President Wilson, and the hope for a just and reasonable peace.
But the peace which was dictated was the one against which President Wilson had so strongly warned. Germany was torn into two parts, and the right of self-administration of the peoples was violated in the most blatant manner, which made the cause for an everlasting conflict. Thus the dictate of Versailles sealed Germany's fate. This fate was suffered by every German more and more from year to year. The everincreasing misery caused passion and dissent. The community disintegrated into numerous parties which were fighting against each other. This situation forced every responsible German to adopt an attitude, this way or the other, and that applied to me, too. I joined the NSDAP. I considered that a group of force which seemed to be called to reunite the German people and, in correspondence with its social needs, to lead it towards a future which was worthwhile. That was the first time that I had to deal with political problems. In the foreground there stood for millions of Germans the worry for mere survival. The securing of that was, therefore, one of the primary demands of the NSDAP, and, in comparison to that, everything else had to move into the background.
This applied to the racial problem in general and the Jewish problem in particular. I faced both of them with indifference up to then. What I knew about it was not due to experience gathered by myself, but was gathered here and there. I examined such knowledge and extended it, through study, particularly on conceptions heard abroad, particularly those of America. I read Madison Grant and Houston Stoddard regarding the racial problem. I studied publications by Henry Ford, which appeared in 1924 to 1926 in his newspaper "The Dearborn Independent", and which appeared in book form with the title "The International Jew", and was widely read in Germany. This attitude of this great practical American, who was not anti-Semetic, impressed me particularly at that time and strengthened my belief that the racial and Jewish question was not mere theory. Based on this knowledge, and in view of the ever-increasing symptoms in Germany, I gained the conviction that the influence of Jewry was not properly related to the portion of the population and that, therefore, some realization had to be obtained. I considered such possible through proper and sufficient legislation. This exhausted my interest in the Jewish question. For that reason I never participated in measures of force against the Jews, nor approved of them, nor supported them knowingly. I was never in any way a participant in legislative measures. In the uproar of war I still refused the measures adopted by Himmler's and Hitler's orders regarding the destruction of the Jews, and neither deliberately demanded them nor supported them. As far as the extent of the extermination is concerned, I could not form a picture at that time. I did not receive reports because I was not a participant. Details only became known to me here in Nuernberg from documents. Up to the time when Himmler made his speech in Posen on the 4th of October 1943, I had no knowledge of the plan. Nor was I taken into confidence after this date. I had not participated in conferences about it, and I was not a member of the circle of those who took part. In peace time in such a situation I could have surrendered my office, but war deprived me of freedom of action and decision. The war had reached a dangerous climax.
It became a fight for survival of the German people. The last capable men and youngsters were at the front. Women and girls worked in the armament factories at home. In such a position, my resignation would have been treason against Germany. For that reason I, in my position, could not even so much as consider such a thought.
Here I am indicted as the chief of the WVHA. The organization of this office of the Reich, from its smallest stages and subject to the greatest difficulties, was my life's work. In those last ten years I devoted my entire strength and time to it. It is my work. My activity as the Administrative Chief was an administrative and economic one, not a military and not a police executive activity. The aim of this work was the maintenance of man and substance for the purposes of the struggle and the work - but not the destruction.
Before this Tribunal the structure and significance of the WVHA has been much discussed, without that aim having been achieved, much to my regret, that a picture was drawn which was correct in every part. A last cause for this lack of success is, no doubt, the chart which was hanging on the wall, and it was not suitable to supply proof pro or contra. Yes, it has my signature because I assumed that the chart was merely to show the Tribunal my field of activity in its most simple form, but not to serve the prosecution as a trial tactical means. The WVHA consisted of three heterogenous parts which had nothing to do with each other. First, the WVHA as ministerial level for all matters of the administration for troops, with the Office Groups A, B, and C, corresponding to the Army administrative department. Secondly, the economic enterprises which were under my personal supervision which, according to their legal basis, were not SS industries but industries of the Reich. They were contained in Group W. Third, the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps, which after the 3rd of March 1942 came under my personal, although temporary, supervision, the Staff Gluecks, which was Office Group D.
For practical reasons I gave the WVHA that external appearance which is customary for ministerial offices, without consideration whether that corresponded to the nature of its individual sections.
Thus, for the entirety of the economic enterprises I chose the fiscal description of Amtsgruppe or, for its chiefs, Amts chiefs, although these official designations are not customary in enterprises conducted on a business-like basis. When, in March 1942, I was given the task of directing the labor allocation of detainees on a ministerial level, I came into close contact with the system of concentration camps. For a long time it had the relentless face in every detail which it was given by its creator, Heydrich, and its organizer and drillmaster, Eicke, in the ten years of their activities. I faced a completely rigid organization. Only by removal of the entire personnel which had worked there for years and all its guards, and a radical reform of the state police methods, could it have been basically changed. The situation of the war, unfortunately, made that impossible.
As far as I was able, I fought against the taking over the direction of labor allocation because my time and my strength had been fully occupied through my proper and far-reaching tasks. My resistance was taken notice of by Himmler in as far as he limited my activities and responsibilities until the end of the war. However, the military events of the summer of 1944 caused him further to give an order as early as 16 July 1944, instructing that the concentration camps in the "A" case - that is, in the event of an approaching enemy - were to be handed over to the regional Higher SS and Police leaders. All evacuation measures and orders, which finally led to the conditions which were found by the armies of the Allies and which was ascertained by the commission of the United States Congress, originated, therefore, from Hitler, Himmler, or the Higher SS and Police leaders - and not from me. I had not given one single order to that effect. After 1942 there were one or two annual visits to the larger concentration camps where armament affairs took place. During these official duty journeys which usually lasted only for hours, but never longer than one day. I neither noticed atroci ties nor did I become a witness to exterminations.
The events in concentration camps, however, were soon overshadowed by the terror of death which came over the whole German nation. However, it neither gave pardon to the worker in the factories nor to the peaceful peasant in his field. The air war of the Allies had made the whole of Germany a battlefield. One town after the other collapsed under the hell of bombs, of phosphorous of the Allied air fleets under which hundreds of thousands of German children, mothers, and men died in the flames. Of the inhabitants of the town of Dresden, where refugees from the East who had fled from the Russians were crowded together in small territories, in one night 200,000 became victims of that horrible fate. These horrors and atrocities made it impossible for any living to think of the present and the surroundings and tie them up with the fate of the eight to ten millions of fathers and brothers who were fighting a terrible fight at the front. These were standing in the center, but not the 500,000 detainees in concentration camps. After distance and time have clarified all events and when passion has ceased and when hatred and revenge have stilled their hunger, then these many millions of decent Germans who have sacrificed their lives for their fatherland will not be denied their share of sympathy which today is being attributed to the victims of concentration camps, although a large number of them owe their fate not to political, racial, or religious characteristics but their criminal past.
In spite of the limitations of my tasks to the ministerial direction of labor allocation I used my free initiative and human considerations to make honest efforts to direct conditions in concentration camps into decent channels. My defense counsel has dealt with details of that. I do not regret these voluntary efforts, even today, even considering the deductions made by the prosecution regarding my participation. What I do regret, honestly, however, is that my efforts have been denied an appropriate success. And the reasons for that were no fault of mine, but they were, on the one side, the impossibility for me to supervise this entire organization from a ministerial leven in Berlin personally, and, on the other hand, they were due to the mess in the traffic and supply situation which was caused by the destructive air attacks of the Allies.