Q. Let me have that again, please. What was the name of that individual?
A. The names were -- Wippern, Hahnefeld and myself carried out the checking.
Q. And you say now that you did not put it that way?
A. Yes.
Q. How did you put it?
A. Well, he asked me approximately the following question: "Did you guess that or what?" And I said, "It isn't possible to guess. I am not a merchant. I couldn't guess. We just spoke about it.
Q. All right. Anything else in the affidavit?
A. Then there is a mistake on Page 6. I said there that I had visited the three labor camps and the labor assignment in the economic enterprises. I said that the economic enterprises which I saw were a brick factory -an agricultural plant, and so to a carpenter's shop. That was mixed up by the interrogator because there was no brick factory. What they were, a plant, manufacturing tiles, furthermore, a workshop manufacturing airplane parts.
Q. You want to eliminate the reference to the brick kilns?
A. Yes, because, you see, your Honor, it wasn't a brick factory.
Q. All right. Anything else?
DR. SCHMIDT: Now, your Honor, I believe that the witness started reading a sentence in his affidavit, which to object to, and he said, "In the affidavit" -- it is on Page 5 of the German copy -- "I had the books sent to Berlin where they were resubmitted to an examination."
I believe that the witness wanted to read that passage there. However, he was interrupted. I wanted to point out that that passage also had to be changed because it should not say that the books were submitted, but they submitted.
JUDGE MUSHMANNO: That the books should have been submitted, rather than that they were submitted?
THE WITNESS: Yes,; quite so.
JUDGE MUSHMANNO: Very well. Anything else?
THE WITNESS: No.
JUDGE MUSHMANNO: The rest of it is correct?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A brief recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. SCHMIDT: May it please the Tribunal, before I continue in my examination of the defendant, I should like to refer once more to the request which I made before the recess, and I am going to repeat it once more.
I should be very grateful if the Prosecutor would express his point of view with respect to the request which I made today orally with regard to the presentation of the pre-trial records of interrogations and if he would make a statement now before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us understand exactly what you want, Dr. Schmidt. The Prosecution interrogated the witness before the trial commenced, and you want the Prosecution to produce the transcript of that interrogation?
DR. SCHMIDT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to be heard, Mr. Robbins, at this time or tomorrow morning?
MR. ROBBINS: I should only like to say, Your Honor, that i filed the brief which was given to Counsel for the Defense -- about four or five pages in length -- which stated in detail the attitude of the Prosecution, not only in this case, but in all of the cases before the Military Tribunals. One of the main points, it seems to me, is that such a transcript does not have any probative value to confirm the truth of the statements made by the defendant. I do not know of any rule or law that says that prior consistent statements prove the veracity of the witness' statement. There may, of course be some -- undoubtedly there are -- consistent statements with what he says on the stand. On the otherhand, there may be inconsistent statements. I think all of these were incorporated into the affidavit upon which he has been questioned.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Schmidt, do you wish to show by this interrogation that this defendant made the same statement before that he is making today?
DR. SCHMIDT: The defendant Josef Vogt claims that in various points which are contained in the affidavit of 16 January 1947 -- that is, in the pre-trial interrogation -- he has given different testimony from what he is giving today, and that the formulation which had been given to these points in the affidavit was not based on his own testimony but was made by the interrogator, and that this disagrees with his actual statements that he made at the time.
THE PRESIDENT: The situation is a little unusual, Mr. Robbins. Dr. Schmidt wishes to show a prior contradictory statement in the interrogation in support of his claim that the affidavit was not drawn in accordance with his statements but contained the interpretations of the interrogator, which were put into his mouth.
DR. SCHMIDT: Yes.
MR. ROBBINS: I don't think that Counsel for Defense is referring to the interrogation during which this affidavit was signed, are you?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I don't think he is either. He is talking about the preliminary interrogation before this affidavit was drafted.
MR. ROBBINS: Your Honor, even if the defendant said some things in a prior interrogation which are inconsistent with this affidavit, I do not see how that refutes this affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: It would't except for his added statement that the affidavit as presented to him in German did not contain accurately his own statements but merely his concurrence, and a qualified concurrence, with some statements made by the interrogator.
MR. ROBBINS: Well, the defendant has said that he had an opportunity to make any corrections in the affidavit. The affidavit seems to state his attitude on 16 January 1947.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will take your request under advisement, Dr. Schmidt, and rule on it in ample time for you to protect yourself.
JOSEF VOGT -- Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION -- Continued BY DR. SCHMIDT:Q.- Witness, in your affidavit you also referred to an inspection of three labor camps at Lublin.
I now want to ask you the following question: For what purpose did you inspect the three labor camps at the time?
A.- When auditing the accounts. The auditing official pointed out to me that a large number of machines and tools had been procured and which represented a great value. In order to convince myself that these machines and other equipment were actually on hand, I told Wippern that he should give me the opportunity to convince myself personally of the presence of this equipment. Of an afternoon -- it was on the second or third day -- we took a trip to three camps which were located just at the border of the city limits of Lublin.
I only inspected the workshops in the camp and not the living quarters of the inmates. We had workshops here where roofing paper was being manufactured. Then we had a big aircraft hangar where repairs were being carried out on aircraft and spare-parts for manufactured and then we visited a workshop where furs were being manufactured. The inspection of all the plants took up approximately one hour. After I had convinced myself of the existence of the equipment which was mentioned in the accounts I again left.
Q. On the occasion of that visit did you observe that the inmates of these workshops were being mal-treated or that they were wearing unferior clothing and that they were ill-fed?
A. As I have already said, I did not visit the livingquarters but I only visited the workshops. The inmates who were working there did not make a very bad or deteriorated impression on me at all. They were relatively well-dressed and they were relatively well-fed as far as I could form any judgment within the short period of time that I was there. What did draw my attention was that in this camp, in the workshops, the supervision was not carried out by SS men but rather by the ranks of the inmates. Guards were only stationed at the entrance.
Q. Is it correct that at the time you also visited economic enterprises of Globocnik?
A. Yes. A difference must be made here between the economic enterprises in the labor camps which I have already described and economic enterprises which were subordinated directly to Globocnik. The latter consisted of an agricultural plant, the carpentry and a brick works.
Q. Witness, I want to refer once more to Document NO-061 which I have already quoted.
This document is located in Document Book 18. It is prosecution Exhibit 475. In this document which is a list of the valuables belonging to Jews which were delivered up to 3 February 1943 and in paragraph 5 of this list the following objects are listed among other things; pencils, fountain-pens, eye glasses, wrist-watches, cuff-links, flashlights, alarm clicks, thermometers, etc. At the time when you carried out your audit at Lublin did you see the objects which I have just quoted?
A. I did not see any such objects. I only saw foreign exchange and I saw a container filled with jewels and the clothing which I have already described.
Q. Witness, I want to refer once more to your affidavit on page 6 of the German text of the affidavit. You are referring to Document NO-060 and in connection with this document you make the following statement in your affidavit and I quote: "The signature on the document which you have presented to me is known to me -- "That is No. NO-060 ---" it is the signature of Globocnik. I do not deny that it is a true signature. The document itself his not been submitted to me. However, I know its contents on the basis of the examination." The Document is NO-060and is located in Document Book 18 of the prosecution and it was submitted as Exhibit 474. It also deals with the objects which were turned in from the Action Reinhardt. I now want to ask you the following question: Witness, what can you tell us today about this matter?
A. The document which is described here was shown to me and on the back of this document I had to identify the signature of Globocnik. I don't know whether the amount which has been mentioned here is correct.
It was only named to me by the pre-trial interrogator. I was unable to observe in the speed in which the interrogation was carried out, whether the amount agreed with my findings on that day I carried out the examination. In no case was the amount located in the treasury at that time because of the 100,00,00RM as the document shows -- within the 100,000,000 RM also other valuables are included. They included all of the valuables which had been turned in up until 3 February 1943. However, this document may have been confused with something else because I can still recall that the interrogator showed me Document NO-059.
Q. Excuse me; I want to interrupt you at this time and I want to point out to the Tribunal that Document NO -059 to which you have just referred is located in Document Book 19 and it was presented as Prosecution Exhibit 488. That is Globocnik's report about the administrative execution of the Action Reinhardt.
A. I can recall this document particularly because my name was mentioned on the front page in a report of Globocnik to the Reichsfuehrer and because my name was underlined with pencil.
Q. I would like to interrupt you once more in this case. In what connection was your name mentioned in this document? Do you have this document before you now?
A. The document contains the following sentence and I quote: "The preliminary examining up to 1 April 1943 by Vogt from the SS-WVHA had already taken place and it has been shown that audit existed." This sentence is underlined with pencil. The interrogator showed me the last page of this document. While covering up the the text above the signature that shows "Globocnik" and said that I did not doubt that this was the true signature of Globocnik.
I believe that Document NO-060 is being confused with the Document NO-059.
Q. Could the Document NO-059 have been submitted to you when you carried out your examination at Lublin? Please take a close look at the document.
A. Document NO-059 was only compiled at a later period of time. It is an enclosure to a report of Globocnik to the Reichsfuehrer in which he gives the total balance which resulted from the Action Reinhardt. That is to say, it was compiled at a much later time. So be sure, on 15 September 1943.
Q. Is this shown by the document itself? Will you please look at the second paragraph of the first page of this document?
A. "The use and the utilization of the valuables were carried out according to orders of the Reichsfuehrer SS..."
Q. I am now referring to this paragraph and will you please continue to read?
A. "...In the course of the Action of 26 June 1942 and the 9 December 1943.--"
Q. That's the spot which I was referring to. This document refers to an order of the SS-WVHA dated 9 December 1943 while your examination was carried out in July 1943?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. I would like to ask you now, did you conclude your auditing at Lublin at the time and to be sure, the examination of the treasury?
A. The examination of the treasury which was carried out in order to determine whether any embezzlement had taken place or whether any money had been illegally removed or spent for illegal purposes was carried out by me through "on-the-spot" checks. The examination of the "Account R" was likewise carried out as far as the vouchers could be compared with the books and it was likewise carried out in that manner.
Since it was an "on-the-spot check", the last two months, April and May, were not examined any more; but Wippern was ordered by me to include these last two moths in this final report.
Q. In this auditing was the examination of the subsequent period, that is to say, the vouchers for the time after the 1st of April, 1943, still carried out by your office?
A. No. For reasons which are unknown to me, these accounts were no longer adutited by my office. At least, I didn't gain any knowledge of it. This is also shown by the fact that in March, 1944, the vouchers hadn't arrived as yet, and I was forced, at the time, to send a letter to all concerned, telling them that whenever there were books at their disposal they should be submitted to me. I believe that at that time they had already been destroyed, as also becomes evident from Globocnik's report, who at the time was not in Lublin any more but who was already staying at Trieste, in Italy. No additional information was received by me about any vouchers which were afterwards submitted to my office for auditing.
Q. In your affidavit you stated that you and your collaborator left Lublin hurriedly. San you give us any explanation on that?
A. Well, the expression "hurriedly" should be somewhat exaggerated. I, for myself was not very pleased about the whole matter. During the entire time in which I worked there, and as long as I was in Germany proper, I had never had to deal with anything of the kind. Nor was it my task, to examine such things. Therefore I decided first of all to report the whole matter to the Chief of the Main Office and also to report it to the Reich Auditing Court. They then were to decide what additional measures and steps were to be taken.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q. Did you make a full report to Frank about this matter when you got back?
A. Yes, your Honor.
Q. You discussed it with him?
A. I submitted a written report to Frank which was supposed to go to the Chief of the Main Office, and I gave him a short statement that jewels were also shown in the books at Lublin which came from the Action Reinhardt.
Q. Did you tell him about your feelings about the matter?
A. Your Honor, the discussion was very brief. I believe Frank was called away and I only reported to him in person only in order to express my displeasure to him that I had been charged with this type of work.
Q. That's what I want to know. What did you tell him about that, not your conclusion, but what did you tell him?
A. I told him, "What do I have to examine these objects there at Lublin, which have been confiscated, which have been acquired quite illegally by the Reich Treasury?" There was no approval at all to include these funds into the Reich Treasury.
Q. And what did he say in reply?
A. Well, he told me: "I shall pass on this report to the Chief of the Main Office."
Q. That is the only reply he made to you when you told him about the illegal goods?
A. Yes, sir.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: All right.
BY DR. SCHMIDT:
Q. In connection with the Courts' question, I would like to add that the sum total of the examination was that you made a report. Did you report to anybody else before, outside of Frank.
A. Before I left Lublin I reported to Globocnik's and told him I was leaving. I want to state in advance that I did not have any discussion with Globocnik upon my arrival. Globocnik asked me to come and see him and then he asked me in the presence of Wippern about the results of the examination. I informed him of my fundamental complaints and objections. They were: 1. that the Reich Treasury had received some income which was not authorized; 2, that the amount which had been accepted by the Treasury had been received through the certificate issued by Globocnik, that is to say, they were not provided with a certificate of the owners whom these valuables had been taken away from.
During this discussion he also stated that the Auditing Court was to be completely excluded from this whole matter. That was a matter for the Reich Finance Minister. Then I did not leave any doubt that I would notify the Auditing Court of what has taken place there. Because the Reich Minister of Finance did not have the authority either to make any objections or to intervene in matters pertaining to the Auditing Court. Well, he then dismissed me very briefly and said, "All right". I handed Frank the same report at Berlin for the Chief of the Main Office. In this case also I voiced the same misgivings.
Q. May I refer once more to the discussion with Globocnik, Witness; was that the only discussion which you had with Globocnik?
A. That was the only discussion I ever had with him. I didn't even know Globocnik by name.
Q. Were you informed about the Action Reinhardt by Globocnik, on that occasion?
A. No; I asked him, "What does the Action Reinhardt stand for? What does it mean?" He replied, "That is a secret assignment about which I can't give you any information and which is of no interest to you."
Q. You have already stated that after you returned from Lublin you submitted a written examination report, to Frank which was supposed to be passed on to the Chief of the Main Office. You have stated that the examination-report contained exactly the same objections which you also mentioned in your oral discussion with Globocnik. Were these objections solely of a treasury-technical kind or were these objections aimed at the fact that the income had resulted from an illegal action. Would you please explain this to the Tribunal?
A. My objections naturally only referred to treasury-technical matters.
Then, of course, in general I objected to the fact that the income -- that is to say through the certificate of Globocnik -- was not correct and authorized. I would never have given the authority to Globocnik on the basis of the certificate.
Q. May I assume from your statement that your objections were based on the fact, 1. that this entire income on the account "R" had nothing to do with the Reich Treasury because this was not an income of the Reich; and secondly, that from the financial point of view it would have been necessary for the income which was received and for the foreign exchange that certificates be issued and they would have had to be included in the Treasury vouchers which had originated with the owners of these valuables. Do I understand you correctly?
A. Yes.
Q. You have already stated that after your return from Lublin you submitted that written examination-report to Frank and that you had a brief oral discussion with. Did the Defendant Frank on this occasion, explain the nature of the Action Reinhardt?
A. No, I already stated that the discussion was extremely brief, and this matter was not even discussed.
Q After you had submitted your written report and after you had reported briefly to Frank, was the examination of Lublin closed for you?
A No. Another examination did not take place anymore. However, on the next occasion I reported to Ministerialrat Knebel, representative of the auditing court about this examination. I also pointed out to him the extraordinary fact that this income had resulted from the confiscated valuables. I voiced all my misgivings to him, whereupon he told me that he would look into the matter. I pointed out to him in particular that according to the statement by Globocnik the auditing court was to be intentionally excluded from the entire matter.
DR. SCHMIDT: Your Honor, in this connection I would like to submit another document. This is Document Vogt # 13. It is located in Document Book 1 on page 39 of the German copy.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Dr. Schmidt, when you refer to your document book, I think it would be better if you really said the "Vogt Document Book."
DR. SCHMIDT: Yes.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Because throughout the record we think of document book number 1 -
DR. SCHMIDT: Yes.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: -- as the document book which the Prosecution has submitted.
DR. SCHMIDT: Yes.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Just for clarity's sake.
DR. SCHMIDT: It is Vogt Document Book 1. It is Document 13. It will become Exhibit No. 16. The document is an affidavit by the witness, Arthur Haleck whom we have already mentioned. He was Amtsrat with the auditing court of the German Reich. He confirms that in 1943 be was informed by Ministerial Councillor Knebel that Vogt had informed Knebel on his return from Lublin about the facts which he had ascertained there.
BY DR. SCHMIDT:
Q Witness, when you talked to the representative of the auditing court, and after you had informed him of the entire matter, did you hear anything further about the matter?
A The next thing which came to my attention in this connection was the decree by the chief of the WHVA of the 9th of December 1943. This decree has been introduced as a document. It is NO-725. It is located in Document Book 18.
DR. SCHMIDT: Your Honor, as the witness has already stated, it is Prosecution Document Book 18. It is on page 182 of the German copy. It is Exhibit 481.
A In the introduction to this document the following is stated and I quote: "An inquiry of the auditing court of the German Reich has caused me to point out the following --" it is through this document that I heard that the auditing court had intervened in this matter.
Q Do the contents of the decree which you have just mentioned of the 9th of December, 1943, go into your misgivings and objections which you made at the time to the representative of the auditing court about the administration of Account "R"?
A In part. My statement was mentioned with regard to the lack of any authority to keep this account. In the first paragraph it was stated that all the income and expenditures are to be treated according to the rules or the Reich Auditing Code. And here for the first time the approval was given to admit such an account and the regular supervision was guaranteed.
Q If I can ask this question once more, what effect did your objection have in practice?
A First of all, all funds had to be turned ever to the Reich Main Treasury, which enabled us to have these funds turned over to the Reich, and thus the Reich became responsible for them. Secondly, we succeeded that no funds were issued anymore as loans to other enterprises of Globocnik.
Q Before that time were any amounts from these funds used for Globocnik? Can you determine that from any document?
A Yes. In the document of the 9th of December, 1943, NO-062, appendix 2.
Q I don't know -- is it 062 or 063?
A It is 062, Exhibit 489, and the report on the cash on hand mentions: "Loans to SS Economic Enterprises: RM 8,218,878.35."
Q This is Document NO-062, Prosecution Exhibit 489, Document Book 19. It is appendix 2, and it is called "Temporary Report about the Examination Report of the Action Reinhardt at Lublin." It is dated the 15th of December, 1943.
Q. You have stated that through the intervention of the Auditing Court and through your own intervention no further amounts were given to the Globocnik enterprises?
A. Were no longer to be issued to these enterprises.
Q. What effects did the decree have of the 9th of December 1943, and what did this decree have to do with your office at all? What did it have to do with your office A-IV? From Document NO-725 it becomes evident that the decree of the 9th of December 1943, among other things, was also passed on to your office.
A. Yes, because this document includes a decree which applied to my office and which probably was passed on to me because this whole decree originated from my original report to the Auditing Court. By doing this this whole matter was to be brought in line with standard procedure.
Q. In line with standard procedure from what point of view?
A. From the point of view of the auditing.
Q. In the execution of this decree were any vouchers submitted by the agencies for subsequent examination?
A. I only received one notification from the personal staff. The front in the east at that time was already in a state of disintegration. I assume today that this decree no longer reached the agencies to which it was addressed.
Q. You are probably referring to the decree of March 1944 which was introduced by the prosecution as Document NO-726 and it has been submitted as Exhibit 496 in Document Book 19. It is the decree of the 15th of March 1944, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you submit any further documents or did you receive any further answers in replying this decree?
A. No, I did not hear anything further of the whole matter until the decree was issued on the 4th of July 1944.
Q. However, you can recall that the prosecution submitted a noti fication of the personal staff?
A. I have said that before.
Q. That is also part of Prosecution Document NO-726.
DR. SCHMIDT: Your Honor, I think we have now reached a suitable time to call a recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 17 June 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 Nurnberg, Germany, on 17 June 1947. 0945-1630, Justice Robert M. Toms, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, I should like to make a brief statement about the matter of the interrogation of Vogt which we discussed.
THE PRESIDENT: Before you do, Mr. Robbins, let the record indicate that the defendant Klein is absent this morning on account of illness. The trial will proceed in his absence.
MR. ROBBINS: I have reconsidered the position of the Prosecution on the matter of whether the Prosecution should voluntarily deliver to the defendant Vogt the interrogation which took place some time in January; and it seems to me in order to dispel the hint that has been made by the defendant that something improper took place at the interrogation, that the Prosecution probably should make available the transcript of the interrogation. I am still of the opinion that the interrogation has no probative value, and that even if it were totally inconsistent with the affidavit which the defendant signed, that it could not detract in any way from the affidavit. Whether or not it is inconsistent -- I don't know. I have not read the interrogation; it hasn't been translated. And that is one of the major objections that the Prosecution has had to furnishing defense with copies of the interrogation because the attorneys for the Prosecution in most instances do not have copies in English which are usable to them, of the interrogation. And to give them to the attorneys for the Defense would put the Prosecution at a handicap. As I say, I am willing voluntarily to make available to the Defense the interrogation of this witness.